Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00641/B Page 1 of 26
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00641/B Applicant : Duke Street Commercial Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six storey mixed use building to provide retail (Class 1) and eleven residential units Site Address : 42-50 Duke Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2AX
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 24.07.2018 Site Visit : 24.07.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 19.11.2018 __
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. 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 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the basement parking and turning areas and car lift 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.
C 4. The basement garaging hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s) for the 11 residential apartments within this building and shall be retained available for such use. A minimum of one space per apartment is required to be allocated and retained thereafter for that apartment.
Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking and to ensure
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00641/B Page 2 of 26
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the bin storage has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such area shall not be used for any purpose other than the storage of bins associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure sufficient bin storage is provided and retained for such use.
C 6. 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), the ground and first floors (shown as "retail" on approved plans) shall only be used as a "Shop" use as defined in in Class 1, of Schedule 4 of the Order.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within a different Use Class will require further consideration and a application to be made.
C 7. 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, replacement windows/doors, 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 and the individual building.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a vehicle swept path analysis for a large car over 5m in length is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department to demonstrate an appropriately sized vehicle can access and egress the new access/lift hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of the development a detail plan showing the position, design and number of Cycle Parking within the site is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department, and this approved scheme is required to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any unit.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient Cycle Parking provision is provided.
N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 10th December 2018. 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 17/168/20, 17/168/21, 17/168/22A, 17/168/23C, 17/168/24C, 17/168/25D, 17/168/26B, 17/168/27, 17/168/28 and 17/168/25D received on 15th June 2018, 15th October 2018 and 26th October 2018. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00641/B Page 3 of 26
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do relate to planning considerations:
o Public Estates and Housing Division - DOI
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):
o Manx Utilities (Drainage; o The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey; o The owners/occupiers (MAS Real Estate INC) of 2nd Floor, Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas; o IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society; o The owner/occupier of Flat 3 Bankers Court, 1 Albert Street, Ramsey; o The owner/occupier (Newfield) of Clarendon House, 3rd & 4th Floor, Victoria Street, Douglas o CBRE Limited, 10th Floor, One St Peter's Square, Manchester write on behalf of the owners of Villiers Square (Aviva no longer own the site).
All are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.
Tevir Properties IOM Limited, 4th Floor Analyst House, Peel Road, Douglas
In relation to whether Tevir Properties IOM Limited should be granted IPS it is considered there are potentially arguments either way. The IPS Operational Policy states:
"Interested Person Status will only be afforded to those persons who submit a written representation(s) which complies with ALL the criteria set out below.
"A. Representations must clearly identify the land which the person making the representation owns or occupies and which they consider would be impacted on by the proposed development."
Tevir Properties IOM Limited complies with this section.
"B. The land referred to in (A) above must be within 20 metres of the red line boundary of the application site, unless the proposed development exceeds the criteria set out in Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan (2016) to automatically require an Environmental Impact Assessment."
Tevir Properties IOM Limited complies with this section.
"C. Representations must relate to the relevant issues set out below. C1. For Planning Applications the relevant issues are: o living conditions (including outlook, privacy, traffic, noise, light, dust and smell); o land contamination, flood risk, highway safety and/or risk of crime; and/or o prejudicing the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
Tevir Properties IOM Limited comments that they consider they should be granted IPS status for the following reasons:
"Our objections relate to relevant issues noted in C 1 of the Operational Policy and are outlined below; these objections relate to the application drawings and design statement and state how
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00641/B Page 4 of 26
the proposed development would impact on the lawful use of the land in our ownership, adjacent to the application site.
As currently proposed, the development included in the application would prejudice the use and further development of the Villiers Square site due to the buildings scale and massing, coupled with its orientation and resulting overshadowing..."; and
"Finally, insufficient supporting information has been provided in relation to the limited parking provision and, more fundamentally, that this can be accessed without causing a hazard to road safety...".
Sections C2 and C3 of the Operational Policy do not apply in this case.
"D. Representations which relate to: Planning Applications; Works affecting Registered Buildings; or Demolitions in Conservation Areas, must explain how the proposed development could impact (positively or negatively) on the lawful use of the land referred to in (A) above in relation to the issues set out in (C) above."
When considering the requirements of C1, Section "D" above, their needs to be carefully considered as a person must also must explain how the proposed development could impact land they own/have interest in. In this case Tevir Properties IOM Limited outlines the reasons above, which namely relates to prejudicing the use or development of adjoining land i.e. Villiers Square site by overshadowing and potentially causing a hazard to road safety.
When determining these two potential reasons it is also important to consider the explanatory text within section 4.0 of the Operational Policy which states:
"4.4.4 The level of positive/negative impact is not relevant when considering whether or not someone has sufficient interest to be afforded Interested Person Status (although is relevant in deciding whether or not to grant planning approval), merely that there could be a more than negligible level of impact...".
Accordingly, the test is whether the comments made in respect to the impact of the development on adjoin land would have a "more than negligible level of impact" i.e. negligible defined as insignificant, small, minute, minor.
In relation to any potential overshadowing (albeit this issue not specifically stated by objectors) of the approved residential apartments (albeit not built) set at first floor and above within Phases 3 & 4 of the Villers development, it is not considered the living conditions would be impacted and so there would not be a more than negligible level of impact and therefore they would not comply with part D.
The next issue of highway safety is difficult to full assess at this time, given possible solutions are being considered at the time of writing this report. It should be noted; a lack of parking provision and/or additional inconvenience to persons driving along the rear public highway; i.e. possibly having to wait for a car to access or egress out of the site, is not considered a highway safety issue. On the basis of the information currently available it is not considered that there would be safety issue which would impact on the use of the adjacent site, and so they would not comply with part D of the policy in relation to this.
The final area where IPS could be granted is in relation to "prejudicing the use or development of adjoining land" i.e. the Villiers Square. The applicants in response to this question have provided a "Shadow Analysis" for both summer and winter periods, which shows how much of the adjoining land (i.e. Villiers Square) is in shadow (hours per day) with the existing building and proposed building in place. They state:
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00641/B Page 5 of 26
"It clearly can be seen that yes our building will overshadow the central area a little more...about an hour in terms of time BUT it clearly is subservient to what is proposed on the objectors site. We believe this is pretty clear that our proposal has a minimal effect."
For this analysis, it should be noted the Department is judging the Villiers Square site as being Public Open Space rather for any other use (i.e. as current designated).
It is accepted that from the information provided, there would be some additional overshadowing lost to the Villiers Square site in summer months. However, the majority of overshadowing would be to the public highway to the rear of the site and a proportion of the west edge of the Villiers Square site; albeit noting that there is existing trees and a tall wall in place which would already create overshadowing to this area. Accordingly, from this respect the proposal is considered to have a negligible level of impact and therefore IPS is not recommended to be granted on this basis.
The main loss of light is during winter months (given sun is lower in sky) and there is a greater level of overshadowing (an additional hour) towards the centre of the Villiers Square site, which arguably is to a proportion of the site which would be most useable. However, it could be argued that the site would be used more in the summer months, and so the greater level of overshadowing in the winter months is perhaps less important compared to summer periods, when the centre of the square would not be affected by the development. However, this increased level of overshadowing is considered to (just) have a more than negligible level of impact and therefore it is recommend IPS be granted to Tevir Properties IOM Limited on this basis.
In conclusion, whether to grant IPS is a very finely based decision, with reasonable arguments either way. However, for the reason given it is considered that Tevir Properties IOM Limited does meet the required tests of the Operational Policy for IPS. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:
0.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 0.1 Following the publication of the last Planning Committee Report an additional letter of objection from Tevir Properties IOM Limited was received (was circulate before initially Planning Committee Meeting 22.11.2018) which objected to the application for the following summarised reasons: Outline which they believe they meet the IPS Operational Policy; the proposed development would prejudice the use and further development of the Villiers Square due to the buildings, scale and massing, coupled with its orientation and resulting overshadowing; detrimental impact upon the Conservation Area; does not comply with GP 2; support principle of re-development but should refurbishing or reuse of existing building; quality of design will have a significant impact on the use and development of our property; design does not sufficiently take account of the surrounding context, nor have a clear relationship to the character or form of the existing building, street scene, the town, or of the Island; no mention of how the building would be demolished is mentioned; does not fit with the recommendations of the Douglas Master Plan; insufficient car parking; the operational of the car lift cannot be clearly understood or properly assessed due to the applicants failure to include a site plan drawing; and contrary to StP4, SP1, EP 36,42 & 43.
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00641/B Page 6 of 26
0.2 An additional letter and plans from Tevir Properties IOM Limited was received (23.11.2018) which outlined the applicant's ownership of the adjoining land.
0.3 A number of emails (21.11.2018 & 22.11.2018) were also received between Environmental Health and Douglas Borough Council in relation to bin storage provision, which DBC confirms that the proposed space is acceptable for this development.
0.4 The planning application was deferred by the Planning Committee on the 26.11.2018 following discussions, in order that Highway Services concerns are addressed. Further, with this deferral, they considered this would give the opportunity for the applicants and objector to discuss this scheme and the wider developments in the immediate area. At the time of writing this report the discussions between the applicants, Highway Services and the Department are on- going, but it is hoped these highway matters will be addressed at the Planning Committee Meeting.
0.5 Additional comments have been made to the Interested Person Status section of this report and in Paragraph 8.3, in light of the additional letters.
0.6 Please note no further alterations have been made to the remainder of this report since the last Planning Committee Meeting.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is made up of properties 42-50 Duke Street, Douglas which are a row of three storey traditional terraced properties located on the eastern side of Duke Street, north of Fort Street to the west of Villiers Square and Douglas Promenade beyond.
1.2 Currently the properties are used for a number of differing uses, which includes a restaurant (former KFC) and retail units at ground floor and first floor (former KFC), albeit it appears the majority of the uppers floors are used for storage purposes.
1.3 The main façade and public access of the properties is via Duke Street, while the rear elevation (facing Villiers Square) accommodates the servicing of the units for bin storage/deliveries etc. The site is accessed via vehicular traffic via a roadway (one way) which runs from Regents Street to Fort Street/Victoria Street.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six storey mixed use building to provide retail (Class 1) and eleven residential units.
2.2 The retail uses would be accommodated at the ground floor and first floor levels of the building, while the apartments would be located at second, third, fourth, fifth with a roof garden at the roof level. An 11 space car park is located a basement level, which also includes secure bike storage. A vehicular & pedestrian lift and a staircase provides access to the basement parking area.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a number of previous planning applications associated with the site; however, none are considered relevant in the determination of this application.
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;
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00641/B Page 7 of 26
(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; and o Manual for Manx Roads.
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 "Shopping 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 two Conservation Areas, Douglas Promenade to the east and Victoria Street to the south 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 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;
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00641/B Page 8 of 26
(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 3 states: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
4.3.8 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."
4.3.9 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."
4.3.10 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."
4.3.11 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."
4.3.12 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"
4.3.13 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."
4.3.14 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;
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00641/B Page 9 of 26
(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."
4.3.15 General Policy 4 states: "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."
4.3.16 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."
4.3.17 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."
4.3.18 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."
4.3.19 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."
4.3.20 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."
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00641/B Page 10 of 26
4.3.21 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."
4.3.22 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."
4.3.23 Business Policy 9 states: "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)."
4.3.24 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."
4.3.25 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."
4.3.26 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."
4.3.27 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".
4.3.28 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."
4.3.29 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."
4.3.30 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."
4.4 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 "Strand Street" under the plan. Project Proposals for the site include:
"SS2 - Significant new retail & residential development on Villiers Square & 'AXA' site and creation of new public space This development looks at Villiers Square, Strand Street frontage & AXA site to create a development site and re-provide the public space elsewhere. The Villiers Square space is currently not functioning and further public space provision within the tight confines of Strand
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/00641/B Page 11 of 26
Street is difficult. The site offers opportunity to create a larger unit/ units to support the intensification of the high street through the removal of no. 23 -50 Duke Street. Figure 7 sets out an indicative scheme for this site."
4.5 The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018) 4.5.1 The site is within a Mixed Use area under the draft plan and specifically within Proposed Comprehensive Treatment Areas 1 (Villiers) which includes this site and all sites and existing buildings around Villiers Square. It states:
"Comprehensive Treatment Area 1 - The Villiers (area is shown on Map 5) Despite planning approval for a variety of uses having been granted, much of the site remains undeveloped and has done for some time. The site has a negative effect on this prominent area of Douglas and impacts on the appearance of the Promenade as a whole.
The area fronting the Promenade should either be developed or its appearance improved by creating an attractive public space. Re-development of the wider area would not be discounted, although where existing buildings are attractive and have a sound fabric, they should be incorporated into any wider scheme. The Central Douglas Master Plan suggests there is opportunity to support the intensification of the high street through the removal of some buildings on Duke Street."
4.5.2 CTA Proposal 1 (Treatment Plan) states: "Development of this area shall include office, leisure, retail, hotel, residential, entertainment venues, food and drink uses and public open space or a combination thereof; or the laying out of the site as public open space/town square in its entirety. Should built development not be brought forward independently of Government intervention, then consideration will be given to compulsory purchase of the site for either of the options described above."
4.5.3 Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 3 states: " There will be a presumption in favour of retail, and ancillary town centre uses such as food and drink and health and beauty uses along the primary shopping frontage. Outside of the primary shopping frontage a wider variety of town centre uses including financial and professional services open to visiting members of the public will also be acceptable. Entertainment venues, Offices and residential use will be acceptable at first floor level and above, but not at ground floor level where an active frontage should be maintained and enhanced. These active frontages are essential to sustain an attractive town centre."
4.5.4 Urban Environment Proposal 1 states: "The creation of residential units on the upper stories of buildings particularly in Douglas town centre or the subdivision of buildings (particularly in the case of older and underused buildings) for residential use will generally be supported provided proposals do not conflict with other strategic policies or proposals in this plan."
4.5.5 Urban Environment Proposal 2 states: "All new development and regeneration proposals within the Comprehensive Treatment Areas and Douglas Town Centre must demonstrate design elements to provide and enhance areas of public realm through sensitive and context specific design."
4.5.6 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 Please note comments are in relation to initial scheme only, unless stated otherwise as amended plans of the whole scheme have been submitted.
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/00641/B Page 12 of 26
5.1 Government Departments 5.1.1 DOI Highways Services initially (29.09.2017) made the following comments: "The existing three storey building is currently for retail/office use. The proposal is for 11 apartments on the 4 upper floors and 1,304sqm of retail/office floor space on the ground and first floors, although the applicant states that this site mix could change. The application has been assessed based on this current proposed mix and any subsequent change should be notified to Highway Services as it could change the site traffic and parking demand, particularly in relation to the parking standards.
The site is located on Duke Street within the pedestrianised area of the town centre with additional vehicular access to the rear via the back street from Regent Street adjacent to Villiers Square. Both Duke Street and the back street are one-way in the southerly direction towards Victoria Street. There is no existing site parking but the proposal includes basement parking for residential use. It is anticipated that servicing would be undertaken from the rear as at present for the site. There would be pedestrian access to the building from both Duke Street and the rear.
The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 1 car parking space for a 1 bed apartment and 2 spaces for a 2+ bed apartment. The town centre public car parks could be used for office/retail staff and customers. 1 cycle parking space per apartment is also needed, with cycle parking for staff for the retail/office use.
There would be 3 no. 1 bed, 7 no. 2 bed and 1 no. 3 bed apartments for the development which requires a total provision of 19 spaces to accord with the parking standards. The proposed basement floor plan shows that there would be 10 car parking spaces which is a shortfall of 9 spaces. The town centre location with public car parks and good public transport links allows for a reduction in the parking standards although ideally there would be 1 allocated car parking space per apartment.
The 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide specifies minimum parking bay sizes of 2.5m x 5m. All the proposed spaces would be slightly smaller at 2.4m x 5m apart from one larger space of 2.7m x 5m which is considered acceptable. There would be a sufficient aisle width of at least 6m to allow cars to manoeuvre in and out of the bays.
The proposed site access details of the car park are not shown and the applicant indicates that there would be a car lift from Villiers Square at the rear. Full details of this must be provided as part of this application so the implications of its use and its impact on the highway can be fully considered to determine if it would be suitable.
Secure cycle parking facilities should also be provided which the applicant indicates would be considered for staff and residents as part of the detailed design process. An area for cycle parking should be identified on the proposed floor plans at this stage, with the specific details to be secured via a planning condition.
Highway Services request that the application is deferred to allow the applicant to consider the above.
Recommendation: DEFER"
5.1.2 After amended plans begin submitted DOI Highway Services made the following comments (16.11.2018):
"Following the previous highway response dated 19/07/18, the applicant has submitted amended plans.
The parking standards for the development are 19 car parking spaces and only 11 spaces have been provided on the revised basement floor plan which is 1 per apartment. However, due to the
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/00641/B Page 13 of 26
site location in the town centre with public car parks and good public transport links the proposed reduction in the parking standards is deemed acceptable.
The 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide specifies minimum parking bay sizes of 2.5m x 5m. The proposed spaces would be at least 2.4m x 5m which is considered adequate. There would be an aisle width of at least 5.5m to allow cars to manoeuvre in and out of the bays which would be sufficient. The applicant has not provided full operational details of the proposed internal car lift but it is considered that this could be secured via a planning condition as it would be an internal use not on the public highway.
The parking standards require 11 cycle parking spaces, 1 per apartment. The amended basement plan shows 5 cycle parking spaces although it may be possible to accommodate additional cycle parking by increasing the cycle stand spacings to allow a parked cycle either side of the stand, and making use of the vacant areas around parking space no. 3. A planning condition could be imposed to provide some additional cycle parking. Cycle parking for staff for the retail/office use should also be provided, but it is acknowledged that cycle parking may not exist at present for the current site use.
As requested in the previous highway response, the applicant has not shown the proposed site access arrangements to and from the car park to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on the adjacent public highway. It is unclear if cars would physically be able to turn in and out of the proposed car lift as the adjacent adopted highway has not been shown on the ground floor plan. Vehicle swept path analysis for a large car over 5m in length could be provided on a scale site plan to demonstrate this.
The applicant has not confirmed that all vehicles would exit the site in forward gear and there are concerns about a lack of highway visibility for cars the exiting the site which is a highway safety problem. It would be illegal for any doors to the car lift to open out onto the highway and obstruct it and it is currently unknown if this would be the case. Cars waiting to turn into the site to use the car lift would have to wait on the public highway and could obstruct through traffic and deliveries as a result which needs to be assessed as part of this application.
Highway Services oppose the application on highway safety grounds as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would safe and adequate vehicular access arrangements to and from the development. It should be noted that even if planning permission is granted for this application, a S109 highway agreement would not be granted by Highway Services for any highway alterations to facilitate vehicular access to/from the site via the adjacent public highway until the outstanding highway issues identified above were fully addressed to the satisfaction of Highway Services.
Recommendation: O"
5.1.3 Public Estates and Housing Division - DOI - make the following comments (22.10.2018); "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.
Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Douglas indicates that there are 260 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. There are also 148 persons on the active first-time buyers register for Douglas and the East seeking to purchase a first home in the East of the Island. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.
In this case, the 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 a Commuted Sum
==== PAGE 14 ====
18/00641/B Page 14 of 26
in lieu of Affordable Housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. At present, the Department does not support the sale or letting of apartments to first-time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold, as costs such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them. This does not apply to freehold apartments, only those which are leasehold.
Accordingly, the applicant should contact the Department to discuss and agree the Commuted Sum for 2.75 Affordable Housing Units.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."
5.2 Other Consultees 5.2.1 Douglas Borough Council support the principle of the redevelopment of the site (16.07.2018); but seek the following recommendations are considered: o "That the ground floor office use should be changed to retail use; o That further measures could be considered which would reduce the building's mass, including further stepping back of the upper levels on the Duke Street elevation; and o That off-site car parking should be required for the office element of the development."
5.2.3 Further to the amended plans being provided Douglas Borough Council support the proposal (15.11.2018).
5.2.4 Manx Utilities (drainage) initially sought a deferral (03.07.2018) while they reviewed the application; however, have since indicated they have no objection to the proposal (20.09.2018).
5.3 Other Representations 5.3.1 The owners/occupiers (MAS Real Estate INC) of 2nd Floor, Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas (23.07.2018) object to the application which are summarised as; have concerns of the woefully inadequate of provision of car parking and potential disruption to access during the demolition and build phases.
5.3.2 CBRE Limited, 10th Floor, One St Peter's Square, Manchester write on behalf of the owners of Villiers Square (Aviva) which can be summarises as; supports the proposed redevelopment of the site give existing property is considered to be deteriorating quality and therefore detracting from the streetscene within the retail core of town; could enhance the whole area couples with the Villiers Scheme; office use would be more suited to upper floors rather than ground floor; the application indicates Villiers Square to be redevelopment, but this is not within applicants ownership and should not be considered with this application; insufficient detail has been included to show how the car life will operate; insufficient parking spaces which could exacerbate the existing parking issues in the area; the proposal should demonstrate that sufficient cycle parking for staff and residents can be provided on site; the design does not take into account for the surroundings; should demonstrate there is sufficient desperation distance can be achieved between the site and the Villiers Scheme; Duke Street frontage is not considered appropriate; the proposed development does not respond to the aspiration in the Douglas Masterplan; application has not provided an Energy Impact Assessment; there are trees near to the site; heritage or archaeological evidence is not provided to demonstrate the proposal would not have an impact; and waste management plan should be provided.
5.3.3 The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey objects to the application which can be summarised as (04.09.2018): proposal replaces an existing terrace of buildings with a substantially higher one, in doing so completely breaks up the rhythm of the terrace ; proposal will dwarf its surrounds and have a incongruous impact on Loch Promenade; from Douglas Heads the proposal will look totally out of keeping being much higher than anything in the vicinity and setting a precedent for substantially higher buildings out of character in the context of central Douglas as a whole; Villiers Square is not within application site; and proposal is contrary to SP4, EP36 and EP42.
==== PAGE 15 ====
18/00641/B Page 15 of 26
5.3.4 The owner/occupier (Newfield) of Clarendon House, 3rd & 4th Floor, Victoria Street, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (17.07.2018):concern of proposed lack of car parking spaces; car parking is already in short supply and this will increase the problem; and access to underground car park for Clarendon House is required at all time.
5.3.5 The owner/occupier of Flat 3 Bankers Court, 1 Albert Street, Ramsey objects to the application which can be summarised as (18.07.2018); appreciate that investment in this area could be a good thing; but consider the proposed design, size, massing and surface treatment would be detrimental to the quality if the built environment of this important gateway of Douglas and be contrary to EP42, BP 7 & 8.
5.3.6 IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society objects to the application which can be summarised as (03.09.2018): existing site contains some of the oldest buildings in this part of Douglas, basement contains cobbled floors and more information should be submitted before a decision is made; proposed building is out of scale with its neighbours on Duke Street ; introduction of more glazing is out of keeping and would totally destroy the rhythm of Duke Streets character; proposal is contrary to EP42 by virtue of its impacts on the street scene which includes is visibility from the Promenade and adjacent Conservation Area, as well as Wellington Street, Duke Street and Victoria Street.
5.3.7 Tevir Properties IOM Limited, 4th Floor Analyst House, Peel Road, Douglas (recently purchased 'Villiers Site' which incorporated Villiers House, Clarendon House and land including the development Phases 3 and 4 and the 'Town Square') have objected to the application (no reasons given) and requested IPS (08.11.2018).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Key Issues 6.1.1 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows:
o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, BP1, 9 & 10, SS2 DMP and CTA 1 & MUP 3 TAPE); o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 2& 3); o Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area (EP36); o Affordable housing provision (HP 5); o Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g)); o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (GP2, TP 1, 4, 6 & 7); o Open Space provision (RP3); and o Connectivity through the site (CTA1 TAPE & SS2 DMP);
6.2 Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, BP1, 9 & 10, SS2 DMP and CTA 1 & MUP 3 TAPE): 6.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Shopping Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The proposed scheme is for retail units at ground and first floor levels and 11 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 3". Furthermore, the proposal which includes the residential units at upper levels is supported by Urban Environment Proposal 1, which seeks such development to enable a more active area during evening/night periods.
==== PAGE 16 ====
18/00641/B Page 16 of 26
6.2.3 Again the proposal would fit with the guidelines of the Douglas Master Plan, which itself has been incorporated into the Draft Area Plan for the East.
6.2.4 None of the uses proposed would be contrary to the Local Plan, IOMSP and Draft Area Plan for the East 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 (GP2, EP 42 & 43 and UEP 2 & 3) 6.3.1 Arguably this is one of the main issues with the proposal given its significant overall size and prominent location. The separate but related issue of the potential impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area will be dealt with later in 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: o Northern - when walking along Stand Street towards the site; o Eastern - views from Promenade and Villiers Square; o South - Views from Victoria Street; and o West - Views from Duke Street and Wellington Street.
6.3.3 Each of the identified views will be considered in more detail in due course. However, it is important to consider the overall design approach of the proposal. It should be noted that the site is double frontage onto Duke Street elevation and Villiers Square elevation.
Duke Street elevation 6.3.4 The building is six storeys in height but various sections to all elevation are set back at various amounts which help to break up the overall massing of the building. The Duke Street elevation successful introduces old and more contemporary design approaches, with three sections appearing as four storey broadly traditional buildings with vertical style windows, but with a more modern approach. These three sections are then infilled between with more glazed elements in between and above which are also set back at various depths. It is considered this overall design approach is acceptable and in keeping with the various building found in the area which generally range from two to four storeys in height and which have different styles, finishes and overall appearance to each other.
Villiers Square elevation 6.3.5 This elevation continues the same design approach as the Duke Street elevation, albeit its appearance would be of greater mass given there is less emphasis of the set backing approach, albeit there are still sections where this approach is included. The main design of this elevation are three four and five storey vertical sections, again similar to the traditional design with two sections in-between the three sections which are setback and help break-up this elevation. The main break is a full seven storey (includes lift shaft) thinner vertical fully glazed section, which at the six storey level includes a horizontal section (forms an inverted cross shape) which runs along the majority of the sixth floor, and forms accommodation for the penthouse apartment at the six floor. Other buildings surrounding the Villiers Square are again varies in design, scale, mass and size. Generally in terms height they are between three and five storeys in height, varying in more traditional forms i.e. pitch roofs to buildings with greater mass i.e. full five height storey flat roofed buildings i.e. former RBS building. The proposal would likely be the tallest building in the Villiers Square; however, this is not considered an automatic reason to refuse the application. It should be noted the approved extension of the Villiers Site (former RBS building - 13/00163/B) was seven storeys in height, with the top two floors being set back form the main faced of the building.
Northern Views 6.3.4 When travelling along Strand Street the site will unlikely to be apparent due to the narrowness and heights of buildings along Strand Street. This is until you reach the square area
==== PAGE 17 ====
18/00641/B Page 17 of 26
around Marks and Spencer and IOM Bank where oblique views of the site would be achievable. Clearly the height of the new six storey building would be more imposing than the existing three storey terrace, however, as demonstrates in the photomontage submitted, it is considered the proposal would fit well in the street scene and would not being out of keeping or inappropriate form of development appearing as the continued and varied form and mass of development found along Strand Street and Duke Streets.
East Views 6.3.5 The main public views to the east of the site are from the Promenade and Villiers Square. It should be noted that should the Villiers Square Scheme be completed then views of the site would likely be screened. However, given the Villiers Square Scheme is not in place consideration of views from the Promenade. As outline in paragraph 6.3.3 of this report, the proposal will likely be the tallest building in the area; however, there are various heights, scale, design and mass of buildings in this area. Furthermore, unlike a number of buildings in the area where these elevation are and very much appear as their respective rear elevations of the buildings, the applicants have designed this elevation with as much detail and care as the front elevation (i.e. Duke Street). Accordingly, while the proposal will appear and be taller than surrounding buildings, its design quality and approach is superior to any other building in the area and will hopeful encourage similar redevelopment in the area. Further, while the building will be a prominent building in the areas, it will also in the short to medium term also distract person/s views of the existing buildings in the area which are not especially attractive. It should be noted the rear elevation of the existing building on the site has a significantly adverse visual impact to the area as a whole and its removal is judged to be a positive.
6.3.6 South views Views from the south are only achievable from two oblique locations from Victoria Street, the first from the pedestrian crossing at the junction of Dukes Street and Victoria Street and the second from the junction of the rear access lane which serves the site (one way street) onto Victoria Street. These are likely to be the only views of the site from Victoria Street, given the height of buildings along Victoria Street (three to five storeys) which would block views. From the pedestrian crossing again a similar oblique views, as described in the North View section of this report, would be observed. Again the new building would be taller than neighbouring properties, albeit they overall are currently taller than the existing building on the site. The submitted photo montage again gives a useful visual demonstration of how the proposal would site with neighbouring properties in the street scene; and while the proposal would be taller and more dominate in the street scene; compared to the existing building, it is considered given its design including its set-backs ensure the building would fit well and bring a sensitive contemporary feel to the site and street scene. Further the corner of the building on Duke Street And Fort Street (southwest) and has a squint corner detail (45 degree angle cutting the corner of building off) made up of large sections of glazing at ground and first floor. Above this at second and third floors there would be a regular 90 degree corner again, made up of large sections of glazed sheeting, which essentially overhangs the levels below and the street. This section of the building again adds to the character and quality of the building and the street scene, creating a corner feature to the building, which will be partially apparent from the pedestrian crossing along Victoria Road.
6.3.7 West views The only views to the west of the site, is when approaching the site via Wellington Street. From this approach only a small section of the overall building is apparent, given the narrowness of the street and with three storey buildings/multi storey car park blocking views of the majority of the site. This view mainly sees the joining of where the new building meets the neighbouring red brick, two and half storey building (Nr 52 & 54 Duke Street). At this joining point, the proposal is four storeys high and therefore taller by one and half storey. However, this proposed section is actually lower than the roof line of Nr 58 Duke Street, which is the property on the other side of Nr 52 & 54. Again this demonstrates the existing variation of other buildings heights in the area. It is accepted that views of the fifth and sixth floor are also achievable from this western view, albeit these are setback from the front and side of the property and therefore this creates a
==== PAGE 18 ====
18/00641/B Page 18 of 26
gradually stepped approach, which in turns reduces the impact and helps the proposal fit with the neighbouring property when viewed from the western view.
6.3.8 Finishes An important aspect to consider is the finishes of the building. Along Strand Street, Victoria Street, Dukes Street and Promenade Area there are a variety of design/styles of properties. These differences also introduce different finishes. The Victorian properties are made up of render/decorative render, then towards the end of the Victorian Period you have the more red brick buildings (i.e. Former Post Office building and neighbouring properties Nrs 52 to 58 Duke St), then there are 1930's Art Deco buildings (Former Burtons building, TK Max & Deals buildings) which are white stone/marble affect. There are also some more modern properties (1970's) and more recently the more contemporary buildings of JD Sports and Top shop which are mainly glazed frontages. Accordingly, there is a clear variety of materials used depending on the age/period of the building. Further as time has progressed, there have also been new shop frontages been added of various styles which age add the overall appearance and finishes of existing properties in the surrounding street scenes.
6.3.9 In this case the application proposes a mixture of mainly dark grey brickwork and glazing, with smaller sections of painted render. It is considered the finishes of this building are of a high quality and reflective of current period. They would not result in the building appearing intrusive within the street scenes and would just represent a different finish to a street scene which already has varied finishes. Precise details have not been included and therefore any approval of this application should include a condition for the external samples being submitted and approved by the Department prior to works commencing.
6.3.10 Conclusion (Views) 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.
6.3.11 In this case there are essentially two separate main views, Duke Street and from Villiers Square/Promenade. The Duke Street elevation sits within a narrow street scene with varies properties in terms of height and finishes. While the new building would be taller (approx 6.5m at heights point i.e. approx two storeys higher) than the existing terraced building, it is considered the design approach would introduce additional interest and also fit well within the street scene.
6.3.12 In relation to views from Villiers Square/Promenade this proposal would introduce an imposing building to the area and there should be no doubt to this, albeit it is considered the site and area can accommodate such building. Further, it is concluded for the reasons indicated within paragraph 6.3.5; and that the building design/finish would again add quality and interest to this area, especially Villiers Square (which is needed) the proposal is acceptable from this respect.
6.3.13 Comments have been made that the proposal would be seen from Douglas Head and would be out of keeping. However, there are a number of large building similar in height, in the vicinity of the site and in Douglas centre and it is considered this building would just be read as one of main other buildings in the centre of the built up area of Douglas and therefore have no significant impacts upon views from Douglas Head or any other distance views.
6.3.14 It is noted the Draft Area Plan for the East (Urban Environment Proposal 3) seeks that 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. It is considered this scheme would fit with this proposal.
==== PAGE 19 ====
18/00641/B Page 19 of 26
6.3.15 Overall, it is concluded the proposal would be appropriate in terms of the visual amenities of the various street scenes indicated and therefore comply with the relevant polices GP2, EP 42 & 43 of the IOMSP and UEP3 of the Draft Area Plan for the East.
6.4 Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area/neighbouring Registered Building (EP36) 6.4.1 The site is immediately adjacent to the Promenade and Victoria Street Conservation Areas. 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 As discussed in paragraphs 6.3.5 & 6.3.6 the views from the two Conservation Areas are highlighted and the impacts considered. It is not considered either Conservation Area would be adverse impacted by the development. Firstly, in relation to Victoria Street, views of the site are very minimum and the only views are oblique and do not affect the character or quality of the Victorian Street Conservation Area. Arguable, given the poor condition, alterations and appearance of the existing building (front and rear elevations), the proposal would represent an enhancement. Again this is the case for the Promenade Conservation Area, which the existing building rear elevation is in a very poor state of repair and appearance, due to alterations including extractor flues; removal of original windows, removal of the majority of chimney stacks, inappropriate signage and inadequate bin storage; all has an adverse visual impact to the Conservation Area. This proposal again is considered to be an enhancement. Again it is acknowledged that should the Villiers Scheme (i.e. continuation of RBS building along the Promenade) be completed, the application site would likely be screened from the main Promenade Conservation Area.
6.4.3 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with EP36.
6.5 Affordable housing provision (HP 5) 6.5.1 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 11 apartments and therefore 2.75 of these should be affordable.
6.5.2 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 in this case for the reason they have indicated. Accordingly, this can be undertaken via a Section 13 Legal Agreement.
6.6 Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g)); 6.6.1 From visiting the area the majority if not all the properties in the vicinity of the site are commercial properties. Further no objection have been received from any residential properties in the vicinity. Accordingly, with the information available it is not considered there would be any adverse impacts to any neighbouring residential amenities (i.e. loss of light, overbearing impacts and/or overlooking) to warrant refusal on these grounds.
6.7 Traffic Impacts / parking provision (GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8); 6.7.1 In relation to parking provision the proposal is split into two different uses and therefore different parking requirements. The two floors of retail space the IOMSP states that town centre shops the parking requirement is "Space for service vehicle use". There is no other parking requirement. In terms of the 11 apartments, 3 are one bedroomed apartments and the remaining 8 apartments are at least two bedroomed or more, and therefore the requirements is two spaces per apartments, equating to a requirement of 19 spaces. The proposal included 11 spaces within the basement which are accessed via a vehicle lift from the rear lane. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with this section of the Parking Standards. However, within the standards it state:
"These standards may be relaxed where development: (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
==== PAGE 20 ====
18/00641/B Page 20 of 26
(b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality."
6.7.2 Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that the demand for residential parking is likely to be greatest between 8pm and 8am the following day, and this is likely to be at a time when demand for parking in the town reduces, as people are less likely to be at work, but at home outside the town centre/near site. Some consideration should also be given that the existing site has non on- street parking provision.
6.7.3 The proposal is also within the town centre and is high accessible by alternative modes of travel and is within 30m of a main bus stop on Victoria Street and approximately 170m of the Main Lord Street Bus Station. It should also be noted that there are a number of parking restrictions on Victoria Road and the rear access lane (no access on Duke Street except for deliveries) which also actually prevent unacceptable on-street parking in the locality.
6.7.4 It is also important to consider that the principles of the IOMSP seek for sustainable development and that Transport Policy 1 which seeks that new development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. The preamble to this policy is paragraph 11.2.3 which states that to meet environmental objectives new development should where possible be located and planned so as to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. It further goes on to state that such sites should be within or contiguous with existing built centres which are well served by public transport and which are within walking or cycling distance of the new development, and this will have the added benefit of strengthening the services, shops, employment opportunities and overall vitality of those centres.
6.7.5 It is noted that site is also close (apx 70m) to Drumgold Street multi storey car park (M&S), albeit this has a maximum stay of 3 hours, and within a few minutes' walk of Shaw's Brow (apx 220m - max 24 hours), Chester Street (apx 500m - max 24 hours) & Bottle Neck (apx 230m - max 120 hours) all operated by Douglas Borough Council. Within each of these car parks there is also the option for contract spaces would be individual resident wish to rent spaces on an annual basis. Again it should be noted that the car parks have availability between the hours of 8pm and 8am, when residents/visitors are potentially more likely to require additional parking.
6.7.6 Servicing the site by bin wagons/delivery vehicles etc would continue as it did previously, i.e. the rear access lane or via Duke Street, which during the hours of 5pm and 10am deliveries can drive along these pedestrian roads. It should be noted unlike the current situation, the proposal does include bin storage within the building rather than be left on the street.
6.7.7 The application also proposes secure bike store within the basement level.
6.7.8 Overall, while the proposal would only provide 11 out of the required 19 on-site parking spaces, it is considered the uses on this specific site, located in the centre of town, close to public transport links and good sustainable links, would all help meet the overarching aims of the IOMSP which seeks to promote sustainable development and travel which seeks to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use.
6.7.9 In response to other highway related matters (paragraph 5.1.2) the applicants have made the following comments in response to Highway Services most recent representation:
"When we heard that there had been an objection from the Roads department we were obviously quite disappointed that this should happen particularly at this late stage in the process.
==== PAGE 21 ====
18/00641/B Page 21 of 26
However once we actually read the reply we were much happier with the content.
To explain Most of the reply is very positive. 1) Number of spaces provided has been accepted 2) Size of car parking bays accepted 3) Aisle widths accepted 4) Full operational detail not required of the car lift ( can be covered by condition). Can we ask if the information regarding car lift we recently supplied has been reviewed by Roads? As this may well answer much of this point. 5) Cycle Parking can be accommodated by increasing amount shown as adequate space is available. We accept this point
Then detailing the negative aspects of the reply a) Lack of detail on proposed site access. Vehicle swept path analysis is suggested to be provided b) Confirmation needed that vehicles will enter and exit in forward gear c) Doors not to open out onto the highway d) Potential obstruction of traffic on adjacent highway while vehicles are waiting Significantly much of this is very simply answered and we believe where further detail information is required this can easily be conditioned pending full design details and signed off as part of the S109 agreement. To review a) We will provide the requested analysis. The existing highway is very much a back route and has little traffic. The door to the vehicle lift will be off this highway. Access to the lift would very much be like entering a normal garage. The access door would be an overhead rolling shutter door set as a fast opening. It would be accessed through a responder unit within each car which would have the effect of calling the lift and opening the door, this will mean there will be very little delay in a car sweeping into the car lift. To the sides of the lift door we will look at detail design stage to slightly angle the immediate walls and recessing the door a little to improve access. This would be part of the detailed design and Roads general comments will be observed b) We confirm that vehicles will enter and exit in forward gear c) We confirm that doors will not open out over the highway being a fast opening roller door d) Any obstruction we believe will be very minimal. As per above the amount of traffic in the lane is minimal and due to the electronic control methods there will be very little delay in the doors opening
We would add that the entire provision of any car parking at all on this site is a great benefit. It would be too easy for us to remove the objection from Roads by simply deleting the car parking. However we have consistently tried to comply with Council polices throughout the design and the provision of the underground car parking is very much part of our brief.
We do not believe that the objections from Roads are significant highlighting the many areas of agreement in their reply. We would suggest that a condition be applied in relation to the final design of the car lift to allow the application to proceed."
6.7.10 It is considered the matters that have been outline as concern by Highway Services could be addressed via appropriately worded conditions which have been proposed.
6.8 Open Space provision (RP3) 6.8.1 As the development proposes more than 10 residential units (i.e. 11 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, Villiers Square and Quayside and it is not considered reasonable to consider such provision being made on site. The applicants have
==== PAGE 22 ====
18/00641/B Page 22 of 26
accepted this and are in discussion with Douglas Borough Council in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 6 of the IOMSP.
6.9 Connectivity through the site (CTA1 TAPE & SS2 DMP); 6.9.1 Part of the Douglas Master Plan SS2 and the CTA1 of the Draft Area Plan for the East, both comment that it was recommended that the application site and additional properties along Duke Street could be demolished and incorporated into the sites of Villiers Square and AXA site (referred in this report as Villiers Scheme). This is not proposed, albeit the Master Plan was clear that the ideas within it where just illustrative. However, the development of this site would not prejudice the Villiers Scheme, nor prevent the improvements to Villiers Square. Accordingly, while not exactly meeting the proposals of the DMP, it would still enable the overall aims of the plan, to rejuvenate the whole area and provide a much improved public open space on the Villiers Square. Accordingly, the aims of the master plan could still be achieved, albeit in a different way.
6.9.2 Furthermore, the proposed scheme has been designed to essential future proof itself, by having the double frontage, which includes have large expanse of glazing and accesses from the ground floor retail units to the rear of the site. Accordingly should further redevelopment take place to Villiers Square and in the surrounding area (i.e. café, bars, retail etc), this proposal could adapted to this easily. Furthermore, access through the building from Dukes Street to Villiers Square is shown and there is connectivity through the site, which currently does not exist.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.0.1 In conclusion for the reasons indicated within this report it is recommended the application is acceptable and complies with the relevant planning policies listed and therefore recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for commuted sum payments in lieu of for affordable housing and Open Space provision, both of which are hoped there will be verbal updates in terms of precise figures of these.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department (Environment Protection Unit) 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: 10.12.2018
==== PAGE 23 ====
18/00641/B Page 23 of 26
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.
==== PAGE 24 ====
18/00641/B Page 24 of 26
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.12.2018
Application No. :
18/00641/B Applicant : Duke Street Commercial Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six storey mixed use building to provide retail (Class 1) and eleven residential units Site Address : 42-50 Duke Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2AX
Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Case Officer confirmed the amended recommendation to be addition of a condition requiring doors to open inwards and requirement for off-site highways to be carried out prior to occupation/use and that subject to confirmation from Highways Representative that condition 8 be removed as it was no longer required.
Condition 4 as recommended was referred to for correction. There was some discussion around current Condition 9 and the required numbers for cycle spaces. The number of spaces being provided was confirmed as five but the Case Officer considered that specification of a number would not be necessary as being defined in the condition, as it may be possible to provide more dependent on the method of storage. However, the condition should ensure the spaces are retained.
Conditions of Approval
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. 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 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the basement parking and turning areas and car lift 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.
==== PAGE 25 ====
18/00641/B Page 25 of 26
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 4. The basement garaging hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s) for the 11 residential apartments within this building and shall be retained available for such use. A minimum of one space per apartment is required to be allocated and retained thereafter for that apartment.
Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking.
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the bin storage has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such area shall not be used for any purpose other than the storage of bins associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure sufficient bin storage is provided and retained for such use.
C 6. 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), the ground and first floors (shown as "retail" on approved plans) shall only be used as a "Shop" use as defined in in Class 1, of Schedule 4 of the Order.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within a different Use Class will require further consideration and a application to be made.
C 7. 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, replacement windows/doors, 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 and the individual building.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed plan showing the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 22m in a northern directions and 2m x 2m pedestrians visibility splays from the car park entrance is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department. The apartments shall not be occupied until those works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of the development a detail plan showing the position, design and number of Cycle Parking within the site is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department, and this approved scheme is required to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any unit.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient Cycle Parking provision is provided.
C 10. No doors within the development shall open outwards into a highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 10th December 2018. The issue of the decision notice has been
==== PAGE 26 ====
18/00641/B Page 26 of 26
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 17/168/20, 17/168/21, 17/168/22A, 17/168/23C, 17/168/24C, 17/168/25D, 17/168/26B, 17/168/27, 17/168/28 and 17/168/25D received on 15th June 2018, 15th October 2018 and 26th October 2018.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal