178838

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  1  of  12

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/00817/CON Applicant : Westminster Associates Limited Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00816/B Site Address : Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2LZ

Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.09.2019 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents.

C 2. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is granted or implied for the demolition of the remaining front facade shown as being retained by the approved drawing 002.

Reason: In the interest in the character and appearance of the area and in accordance with the approved scheme which has solely been approved on the basis of the front facade and ornate details being retained.

C 3. The development shall not commence (including demolition) unless Planning Application 19/00816/B has been approved and the decision become final (either due to there being no appeal or it having been approved on appeal).

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the Conservation Area.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 001, 002 and 003 all received on 23rd July 2019. __

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  2  of  12

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society 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; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and 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

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT ACCOMPANIES A FULL APPLICATION (19/00816/B) WHICH IS FOR MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION, AND IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of Marina Hotel, 37 Loch Promenade, Douglas. The site is situated to the western side of the highway. The building is a six storey (including basement level and accommodation within roof space) traditional mid terrace property with a single three storey bay widows running from basement level to the 2nd floor level. The roof of the property has been altered a number of years ago with the installation of a Mansard roof and a flat roof over the entirety of the building both to enabling accommodation within the roof space.

1.2 The building retains the decorative detailing around the doors and windows which can be found along all the properties within the same terrace, including timber sliding sash windows.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00816/B.

2.2 The proposed works would result in an very similar previous planning approval (16/01163/B) for the conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation. The applicant has explained since the approval and regular structural inspections it is the applicants view and that of the Structural Engineer that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval due to the following reasons:

"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."

2.3 However, following the refusal of the last planning application for the full demolition and re-build due to concerns of the insufficient justification to determine whether the existing building can be retained and concerns of a significant amount of the historical fabric of the

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  3  of  12

existing building being lost; the applicants have re-accessed the application, and following discussions with the Department (& Former Registered Building Officer) now proposes to retain the front façade of the building (in line with these discussions), which is the only elevation with historical interest, will the remainder of the building would be demolished and rebuilt, in similar form to application 16/01163/B (still valid approval).

2.4 The main works include: a) The existing Mansard roof would be removed and replacement with a glass curtain wall setback between 1.2 and 1.4 metre from the front elevation. These works also include the re- instatement of the original render finished arched heads above the third floor windows (previously removed). New glazed frameless balustrades would be set behind the re-instated arched heads which provides a small balcony area behind; b) Windows to front elevation replaced with uPVC sliding sash windows (except smaller windows at 4th floor), which include arched headed windows to the first and second floors to match existing. c) Front facade retained and any repairs to render/ornate details will be done on a "like for like basis"; d) Works to the rear elevation include the erection of a six storey rear extension which essentially infills the existing rear yard areas, between the existing rear outriggers. e) unlike any of the previous application this proposal includes a covered and secure cycle store for 16 wall mounted cycle racks and a self-contained bin store (designed in accordable with DBC).

2.5 The proposed building would accommodate office use located to the basement area (smaller area compared to PA 16/01163/B due to increase in cycle provision), whilst the ground, first, second and third floors would each have two, one bedroom apartments on each level, with a single, two bedroom apartment at fourth floor (within roof space). All apartments would have views from their lounge/dining areas via the windows to the front elevation and therefore would afforded sea views. All units, including the office use, would share the main entrance to the front elevation and a rear access to the rear lane where a bin store and cycle parking can be found. Access to all floors is provided via a staircase as well as a lift.

2.6 No parking is provided within the application site.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a number of planning applications associated with the property and the following are considered relevant in the determination of this application:

3.2 Demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with registered building application 18/00891/CON) - 18/00890/B - REFUSED for the following reasons:

"R 1 Insufficient justification has been provided to determine whether the existing building can be retained and therefore the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 39 and Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy and Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.

R 2 Although the replacement of the existing roof structure with a less harmful design has been noted, this is not considered to outweigh the replacement of a significant amount of the historical fabric of the existing building and therefore would not preserve or enhance the quality of the Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35.

3.3 Registered Building consent for the demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  4  of  12

association with application 18/00890/B) - 18/00891/CON - - REFUSED for the following reasons:

"R 1 Insufficient justification has been provided to determine whether the existing building can be retained and therefore the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 39 and Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy and Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.

R 2 Although the replacement of the existing roof structure with a less harmful design has been noted, this is not considered to outweigh the replacement of a significant amount of the historical fabric of the existing building and therefore would not preserve or enhance the quality of the Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35.

3.4 Conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation (Decision dependent on a legal agreement) - 16/01163/B - APPROVED

3.5 Approval in principle for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat - 94/01841/A - APPROVED

3.6 Approval in principle for change of use from hotel to health club, bistro, offices, and caretakers flat - 94/01352/A - REFUSED

3.7 Approval in principle for demolition of existing hotel and erection of 12 residential apartments - 91/00754/A - APPROVED

3.8 Internal alterations and additions to provide en-suite bathrooms - 85/01114/B - APPROVED

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Predominantly Tourism" under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998. The site is within a Conservation Area.

4.2 Under the Draft Area Plan for the East the site is designated as being within "Mixed Use Area 2". The Plan states:

"This area is characterised by tourist uses in the form of hotels, guest houses, food and drink uses, the seafront promenade and its associated gardens.

Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 2 states: "There will be a presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and ancillary food and drink uses. Proposals to enhance the public domain will be supported. Development which conflicts with these uses will generally not be supported."

4.3 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant:

4.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using 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."

4.5 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area,

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  5  of  12

and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

4.6 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):

"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...

7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, 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 issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);

o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;

o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

4.7 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."

4.8 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) Does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) Does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) Incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) Provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) Does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) Can be provided with all necessary services; k) Does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) Is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) Takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  6  of  12

4.9 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man):

"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:-

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 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

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highway Services comment there are no highway implications (02.08.2019).

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  7  of  12

5.2 Douglas Borough Council are objecting to the application, albeit at the time of writing this report the Department is awaiting formal comments; albeit verbal discussions with an Officer from DBC has confirmed they had concerns of the upper floor extension. A verbal update will be given at the Planning Committee in relations to the precise comments of DBC.

5.3 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (04.09.2019) supports the principle of the redevelopment including he front façade; but have concerns of the proposed glass front flat roof and balustrade at the top floor; concerns no building either side of the plans are shown; concerns proposal will not fit in construction terms or architecturally with those either side of it; seeks to see a management plan to show the demolition would be undertaken; and therefor the society objects to the application for these reasons and considered the proposal should have a pitched roof similar to its neighbours

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following issues are relevant in the determination of this application; (a) potential impact of the works to the conservation area; and (b) principle of demolition.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE WORKS TO THE CONSERVATION AREA 6.4 When considering any application within a Conservation Area the Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted June 2016). This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

6.5 The existing facade of the building is original and retains the majority of the existing decorative features and these are proposed to be retained. A condition should be attached which seeks further clarity in terms of sections that may/do need repair/replacement; how this would be undertaken and the extent of such works. For example if all the ornate features where needed to be removed/the majority, then this would seem to go against what this application is trying to achieve i.e. retain the historical aspects of the front façade. In terms of other aspects, the existing building includes timber sliding sash windows (albeit, these where accepted to be replaced with uPVC sliding sash windows under the last application). Arguably the existing Mansard roof to the fourth floor with four square roof light windows within the front roof plane of the Mansard roof is one of the most adverse and incongruous features within the street scene, terrace and the Conservation Area.

6.6 As outline in Section 2.4 of this report, once the works are completed there will not be significant difference between what was approved under the last approved application (16/01163/B) to convert/alter the existing building and this current application to replace the building. Arguably, with the inclusion of two separate cycle store and bin store this application offers an improvement (separated areas).

6.7 The main benefit would be the removal of the existing Mansard roof which as before is supported by the Department. Its removal and replacement with the proposed glass curtain wall, set back, will be a vast enhancement to the Conservation Area. It should be noted (as before as well) that it would be very unlikely the Department would support the new proposed roof scheme on other properties within the Terrace; however, given the existing situation it is considered on this site to be an improvement. Comment's received from the Natural History and Antiquarian Society and Douglas Borough Council are noted; however, it is consider the proposal would be an enhancement over the existing situation and therefore comply with EP 35. Furthermore, the previous refused scheme was not on the basis of the design or principle

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  8  of  12

of the upper floor extensions and therefore it is considered unreasonable to refusal it this basis now.

6.8 The proposed glass curtain wall will sit in line with the existing front wall of the two chimney breasts which sit at each end of the property. This will in turn significantly reduce the roof mass over the existing Mansard roof which currently projects forward of the chimney breasts. The proposal would also reinstate the three arched heads above the fourth floor windows which again will be an enhancement to the Conservation Area and individual building.

6.9 The glazed frameless balustrade set behind the arched heads will be apparent, as will the new glazed curtain wall from the Promenade. However, the frameless glazing will not draw the eye in the way that the mansard roof does and will certainly reduce the roof mass. Accordingly, it is considered the works to the roof would be an enhancement to the individual property, the street scene and the Conservation Area.

6.10 The rear six storey extensions would essentially form an infill development between existing rear outriggers. Accordingly, the proposed works will have no significant impact to the Conservation Area or to neighbouring properties' amenities. The main view of the rear elevation is from the top of Chester Street Car Park. However, the works will not significantly alter the existing appearance of the building or of the entire terrace from this view.

6.11 Overall, the proposal would seem to be a good solution to the structural issues of the building, the removal of unattractive features while still retaining the historical aspects (front facade). Therefore it is considered the partial demolition would be appropriate and beneficial to the individual building and terrace/street scene and would enhance the Conservation Area. Accordingly, the external alterations would comply with Environment Policy 35.

PRINCIPLE OF DEMOLITION 6.12 Environment Policy 39 indicates that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. As mentioned the proposal is for partial demolition with the majority of the building being demolished, except for the front façade. The supportive text (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP) of this policy indicates that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to; 1) the condition of the building; 2) the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); 3) the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and 4) the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

THE CONDITION 6.13 In terms of the conditions of the building, the applicant has explained since the approval of application 16/01163/B and regular structural inspections (full detailed report within application) it is the applicants view from the comments made that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval. However, following the last concerns raised by the Department, rather than Appeal the decision, they entered into discussions with the Department to overcome the concerns, but also address the structural concerns they believe the building has.

6.14 The Structural report (dated July 2017) submitted is the same as the last application which stated; "Currently the building is considered unsafe to access all areas due to the condition of the structure currently remaining:-

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  9  of  12

o Where floor remain with the rear outlet they are in verge of collapsing due to decay. o Areas of floor boards throughout the building have been removed , where board remain they are extremely brittle with areas of decay visible. o There are quite a number of timber structural beams supporting openings, stairs and floors which have been decayed and have little or no structural integrity remaining. o Internal load bearing timber walls have had their ability to resist vertical and lateral loads limited due to the removal of all of the plaster and lathe. These load bearing walls are considered extremely fragile. o What remains of the internal load begin stud walls so not align from one floor to another preventing the safe transfer of vertical loads to the lower ground level. this is particularly critical at the second floor where the direction of floor support changes through 90 degrees. o The timber stairs lack support, have been damaged and have insufficient secure handrail guarding. o Floor joists have been compromised throughout the building by forming holes and notches for the installation of electrical and plumbing installation.

In light of the above sever defects, decay and the removal of structural elements the inspection of all floor area was not undertaken and was restarted according to what was considered safe."

6.15 Following these comments the applicant comments that:

"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."

6.16 Previously, the Former Registered Buildings Officer considered the information included in the application and made the following comments to the initial submission:

"The Marina Hotel is situated within the Promenades Conservation Area and is a typical boarding house of the late 19th and early 20th century which forms the overriding character of the Douglas sea front and character of the Conservation Area.

The proposals are for the demolition of the existing structure and replacement with a new building. Whist I have no objection to the overall ambitions of the proposals and raise no objection to the proposed loss of the unsympathetic dormer and its replacement with the proposed design, I do however object to the total loss of the historic hotel building.

I consider the application fails to address the necessary legislation and policy requirements as stated above and fails to make a clear and convincing justification as to why the development could not take place with at least partial retention of the hotel building. The boarding houses of the promenade are the defining character of the conservation area; those that have been replaced lack the quality of detail and appearance of the original buildings in their replacements. There is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which despite its current condition, this building does. The application fails to address the necessary tests to justify demolition, as outlined in RB/6 and CA/6.

At this stage I cannot support the application (previous application) and recommend the scheme is revised to retain the existing historic structure."

6.17 Further to these comments he also states:

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  10  of  12

"I am disappointed that a lack of effort has been made to retain and incorporate the original structure (or parts or it) or make a clearer and more robust justification for its loss. I am concerned this sets an all too easy precedent for the loss of the original boarding houses which like all of the island's historic buildings are a finite resource, that once lost are gone for good."

6.18 As mentioned following the previous refusal and comments received; the applicant entered into discussion with the Department where it was agreed that the retention of the front façade could overcome the concerns raised. Further, it has been acknowledged that the remaining aspects of the building which are proposed to be removed, do not add to the quality or character of the Conservation Area as they cannot be seen or can be, but have a detrimental impact.

6.19 The applicants still consider the building is in very poor condition, which has continued to deteriorate and therefore there is a urgency for the proposal to be undertaken soon. Due to this a concurrent Building Control application has been submitted to avoid any delays; hopefully once the planning application has been approved works can commence soon after.

THE COST OF REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING 6.20 No figures have been provided in terms of this respect. The applicant comments that; "Whilst regular inspections and limited remedial works have been undertaken over the last few years to maintain the integrity of the external fabric of the building, its exposed location has cause its Fabric, especially the rear roof section and external fire escape to deteriorate, to the extent that the rear roof and floor structures below are in an unstable condition.

Due to the poor condition of the remainder of the internal fabric of the property, a soft strip has been undertaken internally to isolate the electrical, plumbing and heating installations, together with the removal of celling and wall plaster to identify the condition of the existing masonry walls, existing floor joists, lintels over structural openings etc."

6.21 Policy RB/6 Demolition this states; "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". In this case, the Department has no evidence to demonstrate the applicant has "deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition". Certainly, for a number of years the applicant wished to retain and convert the existing building, hence the planning permission in 2016 for such works. Accordingly, it was only when these works commenced and structural surveys where undertaken that the issue outlined in the applicants structural report have result in the applicant in reassessing the building.

6.22 Furthermore, part of the assessment of Policy RB/6 and paragraph 7.32.2, in relation to this issue, also requires than not only do costs and repairing and maintaining it is important to balance the cost and maintenance against its importance and potential income from its continued use. In relation to the buildings importance, arguable with its mansard roof design is character and quality has been significantly impacted upon. In relation to the income from its continued use, the building has not been used as a hotel for many years and the applicant hasn't provided any information to demonstrate that there have been any proactive measure to use the building as a hotel; albeit has permission for it to be used for residential and an office use under the previous application. It is also noted that in 1991 AiP (91/00754/A) was granted to demolish the building and replaced with 12 apartments building and in 1994 a AiP for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat was approved.

6.23 Therefore, it has not clearly been demonstrated that the cost and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use has not be addresses by the application.

THE ADEQUACY OF EFFORTS MADE TO RETAIN THE BUILDING IN USE

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  11  of  12

6.24 In relation to the third issue of whether "the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use". The building ceased being used as a hotel a number of years ago and has not been used since. Policy RB/6 essentially reiterates what paragraph 7.32.2 seeks, but expands on what type of information the applicant must provide by indicating that;

"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."

6.25 Again the applicant has sought to retain the building and convert it as approved under the last planning application. They now seek to retain the main (possibly only) historical aspect which from a Conservation perspective is the most important feature of the building, being the front of the building. However, given the advice received by the Structural Engineer he has submitted this current application (and previous application) to try bring the building back into use.

THE MERITS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE SITE 6.26 In terms of final point the merits of alternative proposals for the site paragraph 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 comment that; "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".

6.27 This is not a Registered Building, but, it could be argued that given that the existing building is arguably one of the worst examples of inappropriate alterations (mansard roof) within the entire street screen/terrace and that there are clear benefits of the replacement building as outline within this report earlier; it could be considered the proposal would be a "very exceptional cases" bring clear benefits for the community (improvement to the character and quality of the Conservation Area/terrace) and now also retained the original historical faced.

6.28 In conclusion to the principle of the demolition of the building, there are still questions outstanding in relation to some of matters. Accordingly, a refusal could be made on the grounds identified.

6.29 There is also an argument that while there are four key considerations (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP), the text before these four points states; "In addition, consideration will be given to; ...". Accordingly, it could be argued that in certain cases one or more of the considerations could potentially have greater weight. In some circumstances if could be determined that the "merits of alternative proposals for the site" i.e. a new building is of such high quality that this could override the other three points. In this case, it could be argued that given the building is in such poor condition, and as there does not appear to be any other alternatives other than its partial demolition; then the "the condition of the building" overrides all other considerations in this case. Essentially, the considerations potentially have different weight depending on the site specific case; i.e. each application is judged on its own merits, and what is acceptable for one site may not be acceptable for another.

6.30 However, while there are still questions in relation to some of the four tests outlined in 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 and any approval would be a departure from the Development Plan; it is concluded that given the very poor architectural form of the building given the Mansards roof additional in the past; given the proposal would retain the original front faced and once

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      19/00817/CON                                     Page  12  of  12

completed be an enhancement to the Conservation Area, the site and the overall terrace the site sits within, it is considered in this case that it is a "very exceptional cases" and therefore it is recommended the application is acceptable from this perspective.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the planning application is in accordance with the relevant planning policies outlined within this report and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore recommended that the planning application be approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following 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; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated

In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. __

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:...23.09.2019

Signed :...C BALMER... Presenting Officer

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

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.