178187

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  1  of  26

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00637/GB Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing building and sub-station, and construction of two buildings containing a total of 45 apartments and a restaurant, including car parking, landscaping and new sub- station (in connection with registered building application 18/00638/CON) Site Address : Bayqueen Hotel The Promenade Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DG

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 11.07.2018 Site Visit : 11.07.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.07.2019 __

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. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas as shown in drawing 04. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. If there is to be any change in ground level which could potentially harm T25, the area concerned must be hand dug to ascertain whether there are any roots present and prior to the undertaking of any further work in this area, a mitigation strategy must be approved by the Department. The development must be undertaken in accordance with all of the above approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping shown in the application is implemented and maintained.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  2  of  26

C 3. Prior to the commencement of work associated with the development hereby approved, the applicant must have approved a scheme for the introduction and future maintenance of the walls of the building on which there are to be climbing plants, including the species, specification and number of plants to be introduced together with a five year maintenance plan including the replacement of any plants which die or are removed within that time, and provisions for the on-going support and hydration of the plants.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

C 4. 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 construction and external finish of the buildings with the planting immediately adjacent to each building being carried out following the external completion of the building concerned. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

C 5. Prior to the occupation of any part of either building hereby proposed, the applicant shall have approved by the Department a scheme to restrict the use of the car park to the south of the building, to users and staff of the restaurant and where the size and height of vehicles is limited to cars rather than larger vans and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details and shall be retained as such, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that the car park is not used for long stay parking or for the parking of motorhomes or other large vehicles which would have an adverse impact on the outlook and living conditions of those in The Dolphin Apartments and the general character and appearance of the area which is a proposed Conservation Area.

C 6. The windows in the proposed north elevation of the main building, shown shaded in a darker colour on drawing 09A, must be fitted with glass obscured to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and retained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property.

C 7. Prior to the installation of any windows in the southern section of the building, which is designed to emulate the existing building on site, details of all windows, their frame material and section as well as the opening style, must be approved by the Department and the development must be implemented in accordance with these details and the windows so retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the redevelopment of the Registered Building is of an appropriate quality.

N 1. It should be noted that no approval is hereby granted for the sale board which needs to be considered under the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  3  of  26

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following drawings:

BCA drawing 02A received on 19.06.19 BCA drawings 01J, 03C and 04 all received on 16.08.19 01, 03 and 10 allreceived on 19.06.19 02A, 04A, 05A, 06A, 07A, 08A, 09A, 11 and 12 received on 16.08.19 and The Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots dated 14.06.19.

__

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:

Department of Infrastructure Housing Division.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

31, 32, Rhenwyllan Close and 13, 14 and 16, Dolphin Apartments as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

Concord, Cronk Road, 5, Endfield Avenue, 4, Clifton Court, the Promenade and Baycliffe as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy

and Manx Utilities, 20, Rhenwyllan Close and the Management Company of 11-18 Dolphin Apartments (who clearly state that they do not reflect the view of the individual residents) as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

THE SITE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies on the northern side of Port St. Mary Promenade between Awin Mooar, a semi-detached two storey house to the south east, 31, 32, 33 and 34, Rhenwyllan Close to the north and the Dolphin Apartments to the west, separated from the site by a public highway which links the Promenade with the rear lane which runs parallel with it.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  4  of  26

There is also a public footpath which runs between the site and the rear of 32, 33 and 24, Rhenwyllan Close.

1.2 The site currently accommodates what remains of the former Bay Queen Hotel. This structure is Registered (183). In addition to the building, there is an electricity sub station on the site.

1.3 The site slopes downward from west to east by 4m over a distance of around 155m. The site's frontage to the Promenade is 135m long and the site's depth is 73m at its longest distance.

1.4 The existing building comprises the remnants of the former hotel with a more modern part added to the south east. The remains of the former hotel is roughly square - around 24m by 28m, is three storeys high with accommodation facilitated in the roofspace by a mansard style roof with vertical windows projecting out in a dormer style. On the two corners facing west there is a tower on each which provides four full floors of accommodation and further space illuminated by smaller, horizontal windows on the outer faces. The roofs of these towers are formed by slated, square hips (pyramid shape). The corners behind are less pronounced, the one facing the Promenade having a hipped roof running back into the building and the other corner currently having no roof feature, there being no upper walls like the other three sides. The hipped roof sits on top of a new section of the building which was introduced following the approval of an earlier application (see Planning History).

PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for redevelopment. Alterations were approved under 85/00274/B then permission refused for the principle of the demolition of the hotel and the construction of offices (87/01414/A). Permission was then granted for the principle of the partial demolition of the hotel to provide apartments (88/00281/A).

2.2 A series of applications have approved the partial demolition of the hotel and redevelopment for apartments:

89/01310/B - 64 apartments 97/01239/A was refused on appeal for the introduction of 8 town houses to the rear of the hotel, for reasons relating to it being a piecemeal approach to the development of the site as a whole and could prejudice the proper redevelopment of the hotel 99/00078/A - for partial redevelopment of the site for 37 units - refused on appeal as the scheme did not include the existing hotel building 99/02149/A - 60 apartments 01/01913/GB - revised internal layout and erection of staircase 02/00343/REM - reserved matters from 99/02149/A approved at appeal for 2 buildings housing 56 apartments 02/01632/GB - erection of staircase building 05/00419/GB -amendment to roof of approved stairwell (02/01652/GB) (in association with 05/00419/CON), 05/01883/GB - replacement and reinstatement of windows and erection of a replacement roof light to rear elevation (In association with 05/01883CON) 06/00248/REM - matters of landscaping, bin store, balconies and windows relating to 02/00343/REM

2.3 Most recently, permission was refused for the use of the site as a builder's compound (07/00552/C). The reason for this was as follows:

"The use of part of the site as a building compound, unrelated to the site or works which have approval thereon is totally unacceptable in terms of the resultant appearance of the site, which accommodates a Registered Building and which is overlooked by other residential property and

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  5  of  26

the nature and impact of the type of traffic generated from this use up and down a promenade where tourists are encouraged to stay and where tourists and locals alike may come for recreation and leisure purposes."

2.4 The approval in principle, 99/02149/A for 60 apartments and the subsequent reserved matters application for 56 apartments are the most relevant to the current proposal. The approval in principle was for the part retention of the existing building and redevelopment of the rest for 60 apartments. The inspector considering the reserved matters application, 02/00343/REM noted the difference in number but was not concerned about this. He made the following comments on the proposed new building which continued at the height of the existing building (not the front towers) and contained five full floors of accommodation and a sixth floor penthouse set back from the main edge of the building. A further building was proposed to the rear. The existing hotel building was retained and linked to the new frontage building by way of the stairwell building.

"49. Development of The Promenade and in the immediate vicinity is already very varied in style and period. The proposed building would add a modern design that in terms of scale, height, massing and general appearance is generally compatible with the adjoining hotel and the Victorian terraces to the west. It is of course, a contrast to the two storey semi-detached houses to the east. However, I agree with the view that this is a landmark site. Furthermore it was formerly occupied by a substantial hotel building."

"50. The proposed building appears essentially the same height as the main ridge of the adjoining Bay Queen Hotel, a Registered Building. The apartment building is to be linked to the hotel by a rendered staircase tower, recently approved under 02/01632/B. The tower has a pitched roof and is complementary in design to the towers at the western end of the hotel."

"51. The proposed apartment building makes no attempt to copy the style or detail of the existing hotel building, but rather stands on its own merits. It seems to me that the design stands on its own and is of an appropriate scale and design to stand comfortably alongside the existing Registered Building on this prominent landmark site. I conclude that the proposed apartment building would enhance the streetscene on this part of The Promenade and the visual amenity of the area."

He then makes positive comments about the impact of the building to the rear.

He goes on:

53 "I agree with the views of the earlier Inspector that the flank wall of the frontage block of apartments would have some adverse effect on the neighbouring semi-detached houses to the east. However, these dwellings were built adjacent to the former hotel. They are separated from the apartment building by an access drive some 4.8m wide with verges and/or footpaths on each side. The top floor of the apartment building is set back thus reducing the impact of the flank wall to the equivalent of a 5 storey building and in my view, the impact on the houses would not be so severe as to justify refusal."

5.4 He comments positively on the proposed car parking which is at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per apartment and also recommended a condition to prevent the enclosure of the balconies, should their usefulness in an unenclosed condition be questioned, to prevent the appearance of the building being compromised.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the South as Proposed Residential. The existing building is Registered. Whilst there is a proposed Conservation Area in Port St. Mary, this excludes the application site and the proposed area continues past the front of the site and in

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  6  of  26

front of the semi-detached properties to the south east and includes those on the other side of the road and the brooghs leading down to the shore.

3.2 As such, the following Area and Strategic Plan policies are relevant:

3.3 Area Plan for the South 3.3.1 There are references to the site as follows:

Description of Port St. Mary

"3.12.1 The Bay Queen Hotel site clearly needs investment, and would provide a welcome opportunity for new residential development in Port St Mary."

"3.14 Summary of the Landscape Character Assessment: ... Part retention of and conversion of the Bay Queen Hotel and the development of the immediate site around it is clearly desirable, and constitutes the principal opportunity for new housing, or other properly assessed uses, in the Village (Site 25). Renovation and re-use of some of the older buildings may provide other opportunities."

3.3.2 There is specific reference to the site including a development brief as follows:

4.66 Site 25 Location: The former Bay Queen Hotel and surrounding land, the Promenade, Port St Mary Size of Site: 0.6 ha Previous designation: Area of Predominantly Tourist Accommodation (Existing) Proposed designation: Predominantly Residential (Proposed) Site Assessment Framework (Residential Score): 57/68

4.66.1 The former Bay Queen Hotel is located at the north eastern end of the Port St Mary Promenade overlooking the bay. All but the west wing of the redundant Hotel has been demolished and the rest of the site cleared. The building dates back to the 1930's and makes a significant statement as a landmark building on the Promenade. This is recognised by its status as a Registered Building (RB 183).

4.66.2 There are residential properties to the north west as well as to the east where Back Lane wraps around the south eastern boundary of the site. To the north east there is a large open field known as Rhenwyllan.

4.66.3 Planning approval was granted on the Bay Queen site (PA 02/0343) for the erection of two buildings housing 56 apartments. This was the Reserved Matters application which included the refurbishment of the Registered Building on the site and followed on from the original approval granted at Appeal under PA 99/2149. As some works were undertaken on the site, the approval was judged to have been taken up.

4.66.4 There have been calls to allow the comprehensive redevelopment of the Bay Queen site by allowing the demolition of the Registered Building element of the site. The building was judged worthy of entry onto the Protected Building's Register due to its historic context, its landmark quality and rarity and aesthetic quality. Given this assessment and for the reason that the presence of the hotel provides a tangible link with the town's historical and sociological development, the Department supports the Registered Building status of the Bay Queen and any further redevelopment schemes should respect this.

4.67 Development Brief 25

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  7  of  26

1. In terms of any development proposals for the Bay Queen site, favourable consideration may be given (subject to a full assessment of the overall design) to a scheme which retains only the 'twin towers' element of the Registered Building. The final design scheme must be prepared in consultation with the Conservation Officer (DoI).

2. The provision of affordable housing (in accordance with Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, or its replacement) shall be applied on any additional units over and above the 56 residential units already approved under PA 02/00343/B which has been taken up.

3. Development proposals must retain the pedestrian link (which passes the north western boundary of the site) from Rhenwyllan to the Promenade.

3.4 Strategic Plan 3.4.1 The following policies within the SP are considered relevant:

Strategic Aim: 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.

Strategic Policy 1: 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(1) and amenity standards and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest..."

Strategic Policy 5: 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.

General Policy 2: 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; (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;

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  8  of  26

(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; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (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.

Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to:

o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

Environment Policy 31: There will be a presumption against the removal of any Registered Building from the Register.

Environment Policy 32: Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.

Environment Policy 36: 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.

Housing Policy 5: 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.

Recreation Policy 3: 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.

Recreation Policy 4: 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.

Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan

Transport Policy 6: 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. Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.

3.5 Planning Policy Statement 1/01

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  9  of  26

3.5.1 This is relevant as the application relates to the demolition of an RB.

"POLICY RB/3 General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-

o The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;

o The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;

o The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings)."

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

In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings.

Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted.

The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.

o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces, that in an age of rapid change, may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  10  of  26

assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions.

In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;

o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.

o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them."

3.6 Draft Conservation Area Appraisal 3.6.1 The above sets out the reasons why a Conservation Area is considered appropriate for parts of the village. The application site is referred to as follows:

"Only a section of the Bayqueen Hotel remains. The earlier Victorian guest houses from which it grew were removed in recent years, the remaining portion stands empty and neglected awaiting redevelopment."

"At the present time there are just two registered buildings within the proposed Port St Mary conservation area. These are the remaining section of the Bayqueen Hotel on The Promenade and The Old Sail Loft on Shore Road. The Bayqueen Hotel grew from a number of Victorian guest houses, these were demolished relatively recently. The remaining section of the hotel which includes the ballroom was erected in 1935. The hotel was originally called the Ballaqueeney Hotel, named after the farm owned by the proprietors. Its name was changed as a consequence of a visit by King George VI and Elizabeth the Queen Mother at the end of World War Two. Planning Permission was granted on appeal in 2003 for two apartment buildings housing 56 units, and refurbishment of the remaining wing of the hotel."

"In the area around Queen's Place, there is sufficient open space to allow the eye to look into the village, rather than through it or out of it. From the Junction of Victoria Road and Cronk Road, there is an interesting view over the cottages on Bay View Road to the Bayqueen Hotel."

"There are a number of areas within the proposed conservation area awaiting development or redevelopment that have a negative impact. These include: the former Bayqueen Hotel; a vacant parcel of land to the rear of the Post Office and vacant land between Cronk Road and the car park."

"As noted there are a number of sites within the proposed conservation area requiring redevelopment. These include: land to the rear of the Post Office and the Bayqueen Hotel. These currently detract from the street scene, but redevelopment may not happen quickly due to the current economic environment."

3.7 Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreement 3.7.1 The Department issued the above to provide guidance on the preparation of Agreements on matters such as affordable housing including guidance on viability assessments. This, inter alia, recommends that the cost of the land included in any calculations should be not necessarily the price paid but may include a premium for the land owner (the minimum price

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  11  of  26

that a rational landowners should be willing to sell and taking account of the current use. It also advises that a reasonable return to the developer should be between 6 and 20% of GDV depending upon the level of risk.

THE PROPOSAL 4.1.1 Proposed is the demolition of the building on site and the erection of two buildings in its place: one taking the place of the existing and original buildings on site at the front of the plot and accommodating a 60 seat restaurant with 22 parking spaces in front, staff facilities and 28 apartments and at the rear with 56 parking spaces below, the erection of a new building which will accommodation 17 apartments together with associated 34 parking spaces, access and servicing. The applicant indicates that whilst the plans show a restaurant, they are open to this part of the development being used for alternative purposes, with a number of people who commented on the pre-application publicity suggesting that a gym may be popular in the village.

4.1.2 The application differs from that which already has approval in a number of ways: the design of the buildings is different: as approved, the height of the main building is lower overall than now proposed by 1m although the building is in parts 5m further away from 32 and 33, Rhenwyllan Close and 1.5m further from Awin Mooar although it is noted that the part of the building closer to Rhenwyllan Close is two storeys in height and the closest part of the new building will be the full height of the building. The secondary building is around 1.5m taller at its highest point but 1m further away from 34, Rhenwyllan Close and 2.5m further from the northern boundary with the rear of Awin Mooar.

4.2 Main building 4.2.1 The main building at the front of the site is designed to emulate the existing RB in its appearance, size and height including the existing mouldings. It is the same height and width but differs from the existing in respect of the height of some of the windows on the principal elevation which faces down the promenade, and the fenestration of the section in between the towers (the existing has a mansard roof with two rows of three windows beneath and a flat roofed element at ground floor level - as proposed the fenestration will comprise a large central section of glazing with a slim window on each side of each floor. The ground floor round headed windows are to be consistent (the existing has two longer windows with a shorter one in the middle) and the top of the central part will be flat with "Bay Queen" incorporated into the fabric. There are to be rounded features within the parapet level and the top floor, which is recessed from the outer walls of the main building, will be clad in bronze metallic cladding panels. The main walls will be painted render with the lower floor finished in a darker colour and with an Ashlar scribed effect.

4.2.2 The southern tower is to be replicated as viewed from the south and the building to the east is to be completely new with no reference to the existing building. The northern tower is to be different from the existing as viewed from the north as it will replicate the southern tower as viewed from the south: the existing is much more plain and includes an external fire escape.

4.2.3 The building will continue at roughly eaves level of the replicated towers for almost the full length of the building: at the part closest to Borrane and Awin Mooar the building steps down to a height of 17m with a 1m high glazed guard above to secure the use of the balcony serving the apartment alongside. The site slopes slightly towards the east and as such, the building is as high at its eastern end as the overall towers including pitched roofing despite the building sitting around eaves level of the towers themselves.

4.2.4 The new part of the building has been designed to contrast with the towers elements, having a horizontal character formed by the guard railings on the top floor and the square shaped windows albeit within a façade which steps back and forward by almost 2m in parts to create relief within the 70m long structure.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  12  of  26

4.2.5 The eastern elevation, closest to Borrane and Awin Mooar will have a relatively plain rendered gable which has dimensions of 17m in height by 17m width and the scheme has tried to introduce interest by introducing two moulded panels on the upper part, each 6.8m by 2.5m and also, wire will be attached to the gable to provide support for climbing plants which will in time soften the impact of the gable and provide habitat for wildlife. This elevation will also have the entrance to the lower ground level garaging.

4.2.6 The building will accommodate 28 apartments which are arranged that all have principal views out to the south over the bay with rear bedrooms looking towards the rear of the Rhenwyllan properties and to the proposed detached apartment block behind which is as close as 16m but arranged at an angle to the main building. The first two floors will accommodate fifteen 2 bed units, the second and third floors will accommodate five apartments: three 4 bed, one 3 bed and one 2 bed. The fourth, top floor will have three apartments each having three bedrooms. The development therefore proposes 17 x 2, 5 x 3 and 6 x 4 units.

4.2.7 Parking will be provided in the lower ground floor with access from the eastern end of the building. 56 spaces in total are being provided which are between 5m and 6.5m in length and all 2.4m wide. Two of the spaces have more space around them and are designed for accessible use. In addition, 4 areas for the storage of bicycles is to be provided. Pedestrian access to the apartments will be provided from the rear where there is a covered walkway leading to four access points, three of which are stairwells surrounding a lift shaft and serving all floors including the basement parking area.

4.2.8 Some of the windows in the western part of the northern elevation will be fitted with obscured glazing to protect the amenities of those within the building at this point and those living in the existing dwelling at 32, Rhenwyllan Close.

4.3 Building at the rear 4.3.1 The building at the rear will accommodate 17 apartments over four floors with parking for 22 vehicles in the basement and 12 at ground level in front of the building, including two accessible parking spaces either side of the entrance door. The apartments on the ground, first and second floors will be 2 bed units and where the units have principal views either towards the rear of the main building which is as close as 16m but angled from the alignment of the subsidiary block or to the rear looking over the field to the north east. The third floor will accommodate two 3 bed units.

4.3.2 The building has some of the design features of the main building - the rounded element in the parapet, and is a relatively simple structure with a flat roof with roof level accommodation finished in the same bronze metallic cladding that is proposed on the main building.

4.3.3 The elevation facing towards 34, Rhenwyllan Close which is 22.5m away at closest will have three windows all of which will be fitted with obscured glazing and which serve the hall way. This elevation will have wire supports for climbing plants. The elevation facing towards the rear of the semi-detached houses to the east will have more windows which serve habitable rooms of some of the apartments, although not principal windows of these rooms.

4.3.4 A sub station is proposed to the rear of 32 and 33, Rhenwyllan Close. This will be 10m by 5m, 3.5m tall with a flat roof and painted rendered masonry walls with an Ashlar scribed effect. A bin store will sit alongside. This will replace an existing sub station which sits slightly further out from the boundary with these adjacent properties. The existing boundary wall here will have mesh fencing attached to assist the training of ivy screening in due course.

4.4 Landscaping 4.4.1 A landscaping scheme has been developed to accompany the development, comprising hedgerows, trees, artificial hedging to separate the balconies at ground floor level, A small

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  13  of  26

number of trees on the periphery are to be protected and retained with new native hedgerow to be planted to the rear of the detached smaller block to the rear, the planting of a Manx bank at the corner of the boundary with 34, Rhenwyllan Close and the rear of the detached apartments and an ornamental hedge to the rear of 32, Rhenwyllan Close. Root protection areas are shown on drawings 02Aand Barry Chinn associates drawing 04, which have been prepared in accordance with Manx Roots Tree Management report of July 2018.

4.4.2 Further information submitted on 16.08.18 confirms that the ground under the large tree which is to be retained, is compacted and if a no dig construction is used in the formation of the new road and car parking areas, this will not impact the health of the tree and a further drawing, 698/16/04 has been submitted to illustrate this. They also add that Manx Roots will be retained to advise on tree matters during the construction.

4.5 Drainage 4.5.1 Within the site there is a public combined sewer which generally runs south east to a pumping station. There is also a public and surface water sewer within the agricultural land to the north: the foul sewer connects into the sewer which runs through the application site and the surface water sewer runs south east and outfalls into the sea. It is proposed to connect the foul sewerage from the development into the existing public combined sewer which has been agreed with Manx Utilities. Surface water will be connected to the existing system, without attenuation to eventually outfall to the sea and this, too has been agreed with MU.

4.6 Trees 4.6.1 The existing trees on site which would be affected by the development have been surveyed and were assessed as being Category U or C and many were recommended for removal either due to their condition or as they were impeding the growth of other, better trees beside them. There is one Cat A trees which sits to the rear of Awin Mooar which is to be retained and protection measures are included in the application.

4.6.2 In response to issues raised by the Arboricultural Officer of the Department, the RPA of the sycamore has been revised and the applicant has indicated that should levels be required to be changed which could adversely affect this tree then an exploratory dig could determine whether roots are present.

4.7 The Registered Building 4.7.1 The application contains information about the structural condition of the existing building, details of façade retention, a Heritage Statement and latterly information to support the demolition, rather than the retention and refurbishment of the RB.

4.8 Structural condition of the building 4.8.1 A firm of Structural Engineers have prepared a report on this. The survey involved the removal of internal and external finishes to reveal concealed structural elements and the fixity between the floors and walls was considered through the removal of floors and ceilings.

4.8.2 The façade retention scheme designed is described as "very invasive" which would lead to very little of the existing structure retained with render, windows, internal finishes and architectural features needing to be replaced. In addition, the proposal create a complex methodology to the demolition of the remaining structure which creates added exposure to health and safety risks and hazards. They describe it as not the safest solution to facilitate the re-development of the building. The construction of the building involves the towers' stability tied to the existing floors and abutting masonry and their removal would jeopardise the stability of the towers. As such, temporary support of the towers during the removal and rebuilding of the floors, ceilings and adjacent walling. Each tower would be required to have its own self-supporting façade retention scheme which would involve digging into the ground around the building to establish stability. Kentledge (blocks of iron or concrete to provide

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  14  of  26

ballast) would be required to prevent the overturning of the frame and the existing windows would be required to secure the frame.

4.8.3 In addition, the existing round headed windows at ground and first floor are not structurally strong and they are recommended to be removed and the apertures squared.

4.8.4 The façade retention would result in invasive work which would retain only the two outer walls of each tower being retained with the other two walls and the front walling joining the two towers being removed.

4.9 Heritage Statement 4.9.1 This was prepared by MOSPA Heritage Consultancy Ltd. It describes the history of the area and the building itself and considers the significant of the remaining building. It considers that whilst the external appearance of the west wing has largely been preserved, internally, the only rooms of note are the dining room and reception area which exhibit relevant architectural details and the only other features of interest are two fireplaces in the south range and the staircases in the west range but these are considered minor factors. They advise that when the Victorian terraces that formed the original hotel were demolished, the west wing lost not only its original function but also its historical context. They consider that whilst Art Deco/Italianate buildings may be considered rare on the Island, the building's aesthetic quality is far more open to question, describing it as "a rather clunky building that to a great extent relies upon the impression made by its bulk and siting...the mainstay of the building's aesthetic appeal" being "the twin towers and their décor" and with no evidence that the west wing was the inspiration for the other contemporary structures. What remains gives the impression of a square building rather than the striking conclusion to a larger hotel as was original intended. They report that since Registration in 2001 the building has deteriorated considerably with water ingress causing damage and decay and the copper lights referred to in the Registration information having almost completely disappeared and the plasterwork beginning to deteriorate and the wooden floor to rot and the building now stands "in ungainly isolation and contrasts starkly with its surroundings, disfigured by the addition of the south east tower and the visual intention of the architect, lost".

4.9.2 The retention of only the towers would result in the considerably alteration of the reception area to the detriment of its historical importance. They consider that having looked at the relatively small number of RBs in the village, compared with many more in other settlements [whilst Castletown is noted as having over 60, it must be accepted that the vast majority of these Registrations were undertaken in the 1980s prior to the introduction of Conservation Areas and many of the Registrations were effected to provide protection which was otherwise unavailable at that time] and the absence of any evidence that the Registration was part of an on-going, systematic process for the village and the timing, their view is that the Registration was a reaction to current events and this merits a further look at why the building was so protected. They also consider that as the west wing of the building concerned was built in 1935, its relatively young age would necessitate the building needing to be "the best example of post 1920 architecture" to comply with PPS 1/01 (Age and Rarity section). They note that the site is excluded from the proposed CA. They do not consider the building to be unique and refer to the Point Hotel in the village. Any landmark quality to the building could be retained through replication or replacement of the building.

4.10 Further information to support demolition rather than retention of the RB 4.10.1 Following objections raised by the former Registered Buildings Officer to the demolition of the building, the applicant has provided additional information on 4th July, 2019 to support the proposal, specifically addressing the RBO's requirements for information which demonstrates that:

i ) All opportunities have been explored to retain and re-use the building and that these are not viable

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  15  of  26

ii) Details of the actions that have been taken during the applicant's ownership of the building to keep the RB wind and watertight to prevent further deterioration iii) If demolition if being proposed due to the structure condition of the building, it is expected that this be supported by a structural survey by a conservation accredited structural engineer.

4.10.2 In terms of a viability assessment, the applicant has provided costings of a number of different schemes including retention of all existing fabric, retaining just the towers and complete demolition and rebuild. The calculations use a developer return at 15% GDV and have been prepared using a local estate agent and conclude that neither of the first two options would be financially viable.

4.10.3 The estate agent advises that the applicant's development costs are not at significant variance with BCIS published figures for the Island. The applicant has indicated that whilst their inclusion of 15% GDV is higher than the lower ranges in the Operational Policy, they reflect a comparison with returns from other investment which could be obtained from realising the value of the site. There is no evidence that the site has been marketed at a price which would enable the retention of the existing building and a viable redevelopment, the applicant simply noting that "it is unlikely that any Developer would be able to secure development finance for a scheme showing a profit of less than 15% and depressing profit below the expected market level of 15-20% might put delivery at risk".

4.10.4 The applicant advises that the previous owner had maintained the building with the original intention of bringing it back into use, but this was not progressed due to the decline in the local market. They confirm that they acquired the site in 2007, just prior to an economic downturn and when part of the ceiling to one of the upper rooms had been partly removed to carry out renovation work and the dining room floor was damaged from a leak in the glazed lantern. There were significant cracks in the render and internal damage from long term water ingress. The works undertaken since 2007 appear to be "scaffolding erected in 2010 to allow the elevations to be surveyed and for minor repairs to eh made as a holding exercised whilst design proposal were developed and planning approval sought".

4.10.5 They clarify that they are not seeking approval to demolish the building due to its structural condition but because the development options involving the partial or whole retention of the existing building are not viable.

4.10.6 They advise that they have received considerable public support for the scheme including from the son of the architect of the west wing and there have also been no objections raised from any local heritage organisations.

4.11 Planning statement 4.11.1 The applicant has provided a planning statement which provides information and opinion which supports the application. They describe the existing site as having landmark quality due to the side and scale of the building on the site and the proposal in their view will bring the site back into use. They refer to the current approval which may continue to be implemented, as unattractive, impractical with poorly planned layout and restrictive ceiling heights and does not represent a commercially viable proposal as the apartments would not be attractive to purchasers. They consider a more positive and highway quality development can be delivered on the site.

4.11.2 Whilst retaining the towers is possible, they consider that this would prolong the development process and affecting neighbours for over a year, it would prevent the introduction of underground car parking at this point, reducing car parking numbers on the site, and essentially they wonder what would actually be retained that could not be replicated. They consider the proposal to replicate the mass of what was previously approved but in some parts the building would be smaller and better in design terms.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  16  of  26

4.11.3 They refer to the character of the area being formed by the four storey terraced properties.

4.11.4 In respect of comments made by third parties, the applicant responds on 16.8.18 by suggesting that it would not be in their interests to operate something (the restaurant) which would adversely affect the living conditions of those living alongside which would include their own apartments. They do not consider that the car park will adversely affect the outlook from Dolphin Apartments due to their position and note that currently camper vans park in front of these apartments which will less likely to occur if and when the development is implemented and occupied, suggesting that motor homes or large vehicles or long term parking will be allowed in this car park. They confirm that the lane in front of Dolphin Apartments is not to be used for general access although service vehicles - bin wagons and emergency vehicles may but these will not be frequent and will enter but not exit the site at this point.

4.11.5 In terms of comments regarding the proximity of the properties in Rhenwyllan Close to the development they advise that whilst 32, Rhenwyllan Close is 17.5 from the boundary, it will be 27m at the closest point, from the nearest proposed apartment building and they refer to the approved scheme. Their request for the obscuration of windows has been accepted and point out that the bin store and substation are separated from the boundaries of the Rhenwyllan Close properties by a footpath. They refer to another application, 16/00323/B which discussed the proximity of substations to residential properties and where it was accepted that they did not present any health issues.

4.11.6 Any noise issues from the restaurant will also affect apartments within the development and will therefore be dealt with using appropriate environmental health regulations and standards.

4.12 Transport Statement 4.12.1 The application includes information on the accessibility of the development and its impact on the highway network. It estimates that the level of traffic which will be generated will result in an additional vehicle every 2-3 minutes at peak times and fewer at other times of the day. This is not considered to be significant and will be unlikely to be noticeable to other highway users. In addition, the current scheme is likely to reduce the amount of traffic generated compared with the extant proposal. They consider that the layout of the site and inclusion of pedestrian access will promote active travel to the village amenities and services which are not far away. They consider that there is adequate visibility available for the vehicles which will use the site and that the scheme is acceptable in highway terms.

4.12 2 Further information was submitted in respect of concerns raised by Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and minor amendments undertaken to the scheme (16.08.18).

Other matters 4.13.1 The proposed site plan, 02A shows a proposed sales board: this cannot be dealt with as part of the current application as advertisements are subject to different legislation - The Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 and a separate application should be made under these procedures.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners unanimously support the application (19.07.18, 14.09.18). Following the submission of further information, the Commissioners have indicated on 17.07.19 that they will not consider this until 24.08.19. However, given that the Commissioners have previously supported the application and the information does not change the scheme but merely provides additional supporting information, it is not considered necessary to await the Commissioners' response to the additional information before completing the report.

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  17  of  26

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services sought a deferral on 20.07.18 and 24.07.18 indicating the information which needed to be provided. They comment on the absence of the qualifications of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit; three access points to the site are considered excessive and would create potential unnecessary conflict points; the two restaurant accesses are too close together and visibility splays are not shown. They should be 2.4m by 43m. Any signage should be relocated further back into the site (by at least 2.4m) and not overhang the highway. Provisions for refused collection should be discussed with the refuse authority and it should be clarified whether delivery vehicles to the restaurant will interfere with other parked vehicles as it would appear from the drawings that they would. Drawings should be submitted which show two full sized vehicles emerging from and entering the underground car park and site accesses cannot drain onto the highway. A continuous 2m wide pedestrian link is needed to the rear apartment block from the highway including access for disabled users. They calculate there to be one too few spaces to serve the apartments. The design of the cycle storage should be subject of a condition. Motorcycle parking should be provided at a ratio of 5- 10% of non residential accommodation with each bay 0.9m by 2.3m. The overall amount of traffic should not cause issues for the operation of the highway network.

5.3 Department of Infrastructure Public Estates and Housing Division advise that there are 12 persons on the active first time buyers' register and as such consideration should be given to requiring 25% of the units to be provided as affordable units although they note that at present, the Department does not support the sale or letting of apartments to first time buyers or public sector tenant where the apartments are leasehold (24.08.18). They rescind this on 03.09.18 following their understanding of the Area Plan for the South development brief.

5.4 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Arboricultural Officer expresses concern about the protection of the mature sycamore and queries the grade changes to the site which may impact other trees to be retained (09.07.19)

5.5 Manx Utilities seek a deferral of any decision on (03.07.18 and 11.09.18)

5.6 Neighbours 5.6.1 The owners of 32, Rhenwyllan Close object, "with regret" as they support the redevelopment of the site but they consider the actual proposals to be ambitious, unneighbourly and unsympathetic. They consider that their outlook will be affected by such a large building and also they will suffer loss of light and they would like to see a reduction in the number of windows looking towards their property and some obscured glazing installed. They consider that the design is not in keeping with the Victorian style of the promenade and would prefer the bin store and substation to be further from existing neighbouring properties. They are pleased to see the inclusion of removable bollards to restrict access to the service road and they welcome the additional tree planting. They worry that the concierge room may become a function suite and would welcome the decision maker and the applicant to see the site from their garden (13.07.19).

5.6.2 They submit further comments on 11.09.18 and appreciate the reduction of the height of the windows facing them and the introduction of obscured glazing but they still feel that these windows are unneighbourly and intrusive. They too would appreciate maintenance of their property during construction. Whilst they fully support the principle of the redevelopment of the site, but they are concerned about the elements of the scheme to which they refer in the objections.

5.6.3 The owners of 31, Rhenwyllan Close have some objections to the application, relating to the height of the part of the scheme to the side of the two towers and they question the incorporation of such large windows serving the apartments in the part between the two towers. They seek confirmation that the concierge area will not become part of the restaurant. They express concern at the potential increase in traffic on the existing footpaths alongside the

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  18  of  26

site and they also seek assurance that the restaurant car park will not end up as a long stay car park for motorhomes and transit vans (18.07.18).

5.6.4 The owner of 13 and 16, Dolphin Apartments objects to the introduction of a restaurant is inappropriate in a residential area, the building will result in a loss of view due to vehicles, possibly vans, being parked in the car par in front of them and also the use of the small lane in front of their building for anything other than temporary purposes will not be sustainable due to the size and nature of the lane (19.07.19).

5.6.5 They submit further comments on 24.08.18 reiterating these on 16.07.19, adding that they are opposed to the motorcycle area next to the wall which will be directly in front of their property and parking bay 14 and to the siting of the pre-construction sales office or large sales board being introduced onto the car park and in front of them. Their concerns could be alleviated by the reduction in level of the car park.

5.6.6 Dolphin Management (1991) Limited who are the management company of 11-18 Dolphin Apartments have no objection to the application but would like to see a condition which restricts construction traffic to the promenade and not use the rear lane; that the bollards are only removed in emergencies and that the restaurant car park is not available for long term parking. They would also like to see the applicant undertake a condition survey of the adjacent properties before work commences and to monitor whether the development creates nuisance that needs to be addressed (dust on windows, tidying of debris etc) and the rectification of any damage to the public highway which is not in particularly good condition at the present time (27.07.18).

5.6.7 The owner of Concord, Cronk Road, Port St. Mary is fully supportive of the scheme and consider that it is important for the village that the application is approved: this could be the catalyst for further regeneration of the village. He considers that the development will blend in beautifully with the promenade and the recreation of the towers is a respectful treatment of the original building. The inclusion of the restaurant, he considers would be a huge asset to the south when many prominent restaurants are in Douglas. He clarifies that he is a local resident, an ex-employee of the hotel and administrator of a Facebook group dedicated to the history of the hotel (13.09.18).

5.6.8 The owner of 4, Clifton Court, The Promenade, Port St. Mary supports the scheme, considering that the only potential issue would be the additional traffic on the promenade which is already congested at times, particularly in respect of the construction (28.09.18).

5.6.9 The owner of Baycliffe, Port Erin who is the son of the architect of the 1935 extension, including the two towers and who is also a potential purchaser of one of the proposed apartments, agrees with the RBO's efforts to improve the Island's built environment and to preserve its heritage and distinctive national identity, however he states that in his view the applicant cannot be considered responsible for the dilapidated state of the building as it was in poor condition prior to them purchasing it. He also considers that the existing building is beyond economic repair and he has no issue with the rebuilding of the towers - a view shared by the widow of the later Walter Kelly who was a leading figure in the hotel's history between 1938 and 1965 and that this approach would result in a building which would last longer. They would welcome the proposal (29.03.19).

5.6.10 The owner of 20, Rhenwyllan Close, which sits opposite the properties which back onto the site, expresses concern that whilst the footprint of the proposed development seems reasonable, and allows an increase against the original Balqueen Hydro, the number of floors represents an increase which renders the building's elevation significantly more dominant than the earlier building. He notes that the proposed building is one storey higher than the remaining part of the original structure and the original building followed the contour of the ground; by running the roof line along the entire length of the proposed structure this will

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  19  of  26

appear considerably higher than the original building. He suggests that the original building also reduced its visual impact by incorporating the top floor into a mansard roof and considers that overall, the height and bulk of the proposed building is much more visually intrusive than the original which will adversely affect the views of Gansey from the Port St. Mary town centre and more distant views of the town itself and from Ballarock, the new building will totally dominate the view of the town, significantly changing its character so as to appear more like a Spanish holiday resort than a pleasant Manx fishing town. He considers that these aspects would be much improved by limiting the new plan to the same height as the original building and perhaps by incorporating the top floor into a mansard roof more in the original style. Although this would reduce the number of floors, given the larger footprint it would still increase the overall size compared with the original structure. A reduction to three stories at the north-eastern end would also allow the roofline to more closely follow the contour of the ground and by intention or by luck, the bulk of the original building was broken by the use of distinctive styles for the north and southern ends of the building; a similar approach today would also be advantageous. He states that although we live near to the proposed development, his concern relates to its impact on the community compared with the original protected building (29.12.18).

5.6.11 The owner of 14, Dolphin Court confirms that he has no objection to the demolition of the building as it no longer has any design merit and is regarded locally as an eyesore and he would prefer not to have included a commercial operation which may not prove to be viable (18.07.19).

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development of the site for a restaurant and apartments is considered acceptable as the land is designated for residential use and a restaurant is considered an appropriate use in principle in such an area. The issues in this case are firstly whether it is acceptable to demolish the Registered Building. Secondly, is the proposed development acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area, given the proposed Conservation Area status of the adjacent area; whether the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, particularly 32, 33 and 34, Rhenwyllan Close and Awin Mooar and Borrane and finally, whether the development would be acceptable in highway safety terms. In all these aspects it is appropriate to consider the provisions of the Area Plan and in particular the development brief, the Strategic Plan and PPS 1/01.

6.2 DEMOLITION OF THE REGISTERED BUILDING (Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 30 and 31, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - RB/6 and Area Plan for the South Development Brief) 6.2.1 It is clear from all of the above policies and proposals, that it is the Department's preference that the existing Registered Building in terms of the two towers, is retained. It is not clear in the APS whether this also involves the retention of the fabric in between the towers. If it does, it is clear from its appearance that this section of the building does not have the interest and detail of the towers alongside and it is not considered that there would be a conservation justification for keeping this part of the building.

6.2.2 The information provided by the applicant in respect of how the towers would be retained if this was required is interesting. It is clear that taking into account the requirements for health and safety and more importantly, for the integrity of the remaining structure, these works would be invasive to the structure and in order to undertake the supporting works whilst the rest of the building were removed, that very little of the building would actually remain and BBConsulting drawings 03, 04 and 05 clearly demonstrate this. In terms of retention of the RB, it is therefore questionable that it would be possible to retain the RB to any great or meaningful extent.

6.2.3 As such, given that the importance of the building is in part the history and architecture of the western elevation, and partly the landmark significance of this part of the building;

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  20  of  26

bearing in mind that the application seeks to replicate these elements of the building and what little of the original building would actually be retained, it is considered that the demolition of the existing building is acceptable. In further support of this position, it is clear that with the retention of the existing building, it would not be possible to provide as much car parking as would be possible with the demolition and full excavation of the site and in an area where many of the other buildings on the promenade do not have the full complement of car parking that is required by their uses, and the fact that the promenade is a popular destination particularly in the summer months, it is considered very important that any new use on this site can provide enough car parking for its users so that parking does not spill over onto the highway.

6.2.4 Whilst it is often the case where the demolition of protected or historically/architecturally important buildings is accepted, that their redevelopment is not required to replicate the original - such as the Majestic Hotel in Onchan - as many consider that replicating something almost seeks to mislead the viewer into thinking that what stands on the site is the original building, in this case, the importance of the building is not just its history (which is relatively modern compared with other buildings on the Register) but its design, appearance and landmark quality, given that it can be seen from literally miles away. As such, the replication of the towers is considered highly desirable in this case and the different treatment of the section between the towers - arguably an enhancement on the existing - is considered appropriate.

6.2.5 The applicant provides justification in financial terms for the demolition of the building, suggesting that the retention of the building in any form is not commercially viable. This is considered a less persuasive argument than that based upon the preceding paragraphs on the basis that viability depends upon a number of factors - particularly the purchase price of the property and the expected return - which are fixed from the perspective of the applicant, but not so much so from the position of the Department, as is clear from the guidance provided in the Operational Policy on Section 13 agreements. If someone pays too much for a property, it is not the role of the planning process to accept development which secures a level of financial return on which this is based, if the development would otherwise be unacceptable. If the development which is required to do this is unacceptable then an option would be that the owner sells the site at a loss to someone who could make an acceptable development viable. There is no evidence in this case that the property has been marketed at a price which would enable the retention of the building and its viable redevelopment or use. There is also no evidence that alternative schemes have been considered with less construction cost and different levels of return. However given the conclusion of paragraphs 6.2.1 - 6.2.4, it is not considered necessary to be persuaded by the financial justification provided.

6.3 IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA (General Policy 2b, c and g and EP36) 6.3.1 The impact of the development on the area will be significant but regard must be had to the approved scheme which may still be implemented. In this respect, a sizeable building as is proposed is acceptable including the detached building to the rear. It is considered that what is now proposed is better in terms of design which will be appreciable from closer up, particularly the inclusion of wall planting, and that there would be a negligible difference in terms of massing, height, size and general impact from further away compared with what has approval under the earlier scheme. The 2002 approval was in place when the proposed Conservation Area was introduced and as such, what is now proposed cannot be considered to have an adverse impact on the proposed CA.

6.3.2 The success of the proposed scheme will depend upon the proposed landscaping scheme and the satisfactory protection of the existing trees on site, particularly the sycamore at the northern end and in this respect, conditions should be attached as follows:

No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  21  of  26

5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas as shown in drawing 04. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. If there is to be any change in ground level which could potentially harm T25, the area concerned must be hand dug to ascertain whether there are any roots present and prior to the undertaking of any further work in this area, a mitigation strategy must be approved by the Department. The development must be undertaken in accordance with all of the above approved details.

6.3.3 The success of the scheme will also rely upon appropriate planting and conditions are recommended as follows:

Prior to the commencement of work associated with the development hereby approved, the applicant must have approved a scheme for the introduction and future maintenance of the walls of the building on which there are to be climbing plants, including the species, specification and number of plants to be introduced together with a five year maintenance plan including the replacement of any plants which die or are removed within that time, and provisions for the on-going support and hydration of the plants.

Reason: to safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

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 construction and external finish of the buildings with the planting immediately adjacent to each building being carried out following the external completion of the building concerned. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

6.3.4 It is important that the detailing provided in the replacement of the towers element of the building is appropriate for a building of this quality and as such, further details of all the glazing in this part of the building should be approved by the Department prior to any installation of windows.

6.4 IMPACT ON THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF THOSE IN ADJACENT DWELLINGS (GP2g) 6.4.1 Both buildings will have an impact on the outlook from the properties and gardens of those living adjacent to the site - notably Borrane, Awin Mooar, 32, 33 and 34, Rhenwyllan Close and those in the Dolphin apartments. Whilst significant, the impact must be considered alongside the approval which can still be implemented and in respect of The Dolphin Apartments, the impact of the building will be very similar. The impact from the inclusion of a restaurant and associated car park will be different however, and in order to prevent the car park from becoming occupied with larger vehicles and those which are parked for long periods, it is proposed to attach a condition which restricts this as follows:

Prior to the occupation of any part of either building hereby proposed, the application shall have approved by the Department a scheme to restrict the use of the car park to the south of the building, to users and staff of the restaurant and where the size and height of vehicles is limited to cars rather than larger vans.

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  22  of  26

Reason: to ensure that the car park is not used for long stay parking or for the parking of motorhomes or other large vehicles which would have an adverse impact on the outlook and living conditions of those in The Dolphin Apartments and the general character and appearance of the area which is a proposed Conservation Area.

6.4.2 There has been concern that some of the windows in the rear of the reconstructed western town could cause inter-visibility issues for occupiers of the proposed building and those in existing adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed to fit a number of these closest windows with obscured glazing and these windows serve bathrooms, stores and stairwells. The remaining windows on the rear elevation serve bedrooms which are unlikely to be occupied during the day and where there may well be curtains to protect the privacy of the occupants which will in turn, reduce inter-visibility with adjacent properties. These windows are 18m at closest where the proposed windows will be obscured and more than 30m away in the case of the unobscured windows. A condition should be attached to ensure that these windows are suitably glazed:

The windows in the proposed north elevation of the main building, shown shaded in a darker colour on drawing 09A, must be fitted with glass obscured to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and retained as such.

Reason: to ensure that the development does not have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property.

6.4.3 Subject to these conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with the Department's Residential Design Guide which, whilst is intended to guide domestic-scale development , sets out basic standards by which impact on privacy will be measured and these are considered just as relevant in a development such as this which will have an impact on the living conditions of those living in dwellings and apartments alongside.

6.5 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP2h and i, TPs 6 and 7) 6.5.1 The issues raised by Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have been addressed through revised plans which omit one of the accesses, the provision of visibility splays as required, the relocation of the sales board, they have liaised with the local authority regarding refuse collection who confirm that they will enter the site and can be accommodated. They have also confirmed that the nature of goods likely to be delivered to the restaurant would be delivered in small vans (Mercedes Sprinter type size) which can be accommodated in the car park. They have provided swept path drawings as requested and a continuous 2m wide pedestrian link to the rear block has been provided. Motorcycle parking is now provided and the required amount of parking has been provided.

6.5.2 It is therefore concluded that the development would not have a harmful impact on highway safety.

6.6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6.6.1 It is generally required that development provides affordable housing and public open space in compliance with Strategic Plan standards. In this case, the Area Plan for the South recommends in the appropriate development brief that as planning approval has been granted for a residential development on the site which could still be completed, which was not subject to such a requirement, that affordable housing will only be required for units over and above the 56 which already have approval.

6.6.2 The previously approved development is still capable of being implemented although the current owner considers this undesirable for financial and aesthetic reasons. What is now proposed results in a visually better scheme and the removal of parts of the existing building which are not considered to contribute positively to the character or appearance of the area.

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  23  of  26

6.6.3 It could be argued that as this current application does not retain the tower elements of the existing building, that it is not fully in compliance with the development brief and therefore the exemption of affordable housing should not be applied. However, the justification for not requiring any affordable housing is not specifically associated with the retention of the existing building, but more that there is a scheme which may be implemented which would not deliver any affordable units and that it would not seem reasonable to penalise a better scheme with fewer units of accommodation, which this arguably is.

6.6.2 Similarly, for public open space, there is already a scheme which could be implemented which would deliver no more POS than does the proposed scheme. The proximity of the existing public open space between the site and the sea are noted.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the demolition of a Registered Building should not be considered lightly, in this case, it is considered that there is justification for this. In addition, the scheme represents an improvement on the scheme approved in 2002 which may still be completed if not by the current owner who may consider it unviable and undesirable, then by someone who may decide that the approved scheme can and should be pursued. It is noted that there are no objections to the demolition from either Manx National Heritage or any local or other heritage organisations, despite them having been contacted by the Department for their views. The development has been considered in respect of all of the relevant Area and Strategic Plan policies and has found to comply with these.

7.2 The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions, some of which are highlighted above.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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

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

Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...29.07.2019

Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer

==== PAGE 24 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  24  of  26

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 25 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  25  of  26

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 29.07.2019

Application No. :

18/00637/GB Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing building and sub-station, and construction of two buildings containing a total of 45 apartments and a restaurant, including car parking, landscaping and new sub- station (in connection with registered building application 18/00638/CON) Site Address : Bayqueen Hotel The Promenade Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DG

Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee approved the application at their meeting of 29th July, 2019 subject to 10 additional conditions recommended by Highway Services, DoI (numbered 8 to 17)

Additional conditions of approval

C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, or the submission of any details required to comply with the other conditions set out on this decision notice, the applicant must have approved by the Department a swept path analysis of two vehicles which are at least 5 metres in length passing each other at the entrance/exit of the underground car park serving the front building.

Reason: to ensure that the car park can be safely access and egressed and to ensure that this is satisfied prior to any of the other details being addressed in case the results of the swept path analysis has an impact on the other matters which are to be addressed in other conditions.

C 9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used at any time unless:

• the bellmouth of the junction of the rear lane with the promenade has been reduced in width and improved pedestrian crossing facilities are in place on the west side of its junction with the rear lane; and
• the above works have been approved in writing by the Department or included within a Section 109A Highway Agreement.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

==== PAGE 26 ====

                                      18/00637/GB                                     Page  26  of  26

C 10. Prior to the commencement of any built development associated with this approval, the applicant must have approved by the Department details of proposed site levels and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.

Reason: to ensure that the gradients of the vehicle manoeuvring areas are appropriate for use by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians

C 11. Prior to the commencement of any built development associated with this approval, the applicant must have approved by the Department details of refuse collection from the site which demonstrates that refuse vehicles are able to safely access and egress the site and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.

Reason: to ensure that the site can be adequately serviced.

C 12. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used at any time unless signage is in place which identifies the points of vehicular access into and from the site and is in accordance with details which have been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

C 13. Prior to the occupation or use of the development hereby approved, visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres in both directions must be available for the two site accesses onto the promenade in accordance with drawings which have been approved by the Department. These splays must be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

C 14. Notwithstanding the approved plans or the requirement of any other condition, the boundary wall along the frontage of the site must be no higher than 1 metre when measured from the adjacent highway.

Reason: to ensure the provision of adequate visibility splays.

C 15. The area to the south east of the bend shall only be grassed and not planted with trees or shrubs.

Reason: to ensure visibility from both sides of the access road.

C 16. Prior to the occupation or use of the building, the parking, access and vehicle, cycle and pedestrian manoeuvring areas must be laid out and suitably hard surfaced as shown in the approved plans (or as otherwise required by conditions set out on this decision notice) and be available for use and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: to provide adequate access and sufficient car parking.

C 17. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used at any time unless cycle parking is in place and available and is in accordance with details which have been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: to ensure adequate cycle parking provision in accordance with Government's Active Travel Strategy.