DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01329/B Applicant: Mr Dennis Rodgers Proposal: Demolition of part of existing building to rear, conversion of remaining building, erection of new build element to rear of site, all to form cafe/bar/restaurant at ground and basement levels and 6 apartments on floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01330/CON) Site Address: 22-23 North Quay Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4LE Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2019 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. No customers shall remain within the café/bar/restaurant hereby approved shall outside the hours of 08:00 and 23:00 (Monday to Saturday) and 09:00 - 15:00 (Sundays). Reason: In the interests of local amenity.
• C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the bicycle and bin stores as shown on plan P-10-02 have been provided and they shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that these facilities are provided.
• C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Flood Mitigation Measures as set out in paragraphs 6.3.1 - 6.3.4 of the Design Statement (date stamped as having been received 21.12.18) are in-place and they shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that flood mitigation and resilience measures are implemented.

• C 5. Prior to any works taking place, including internal works to any of the existing buildings on site, bat surveys shall be undertaken by an agreed expert to establish the presence or absence of bats in the internal roof space. Details of the proposed survey, expert, appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department and shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall contain amongst other things:

• o the results of a bat survey which has been undertaken by licensed bat workers;
• o suitable protection and/or mitigation measures for any bats identified by the survey;
• o measures to ensure that a licensed bat worker is onsite during any works relating to the removal or alteration of roof, chimneys and walls in order to check for bats which may not have been picked up during the survey; and
• o measures to be undertaken in the event that a bat is found by the bat-worker on site.

Should bats be found, the appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on protected species in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

• C 6. Before the commencement of works, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Department showing the areas of masonry to be demolished and setting out the method of ensuring the safety and stability of the building fabric identified to be retained throughout the phases of demolition and reconstruction. Such details to include structural engineering drawings and/or a method statement. The work shall be carried out fully in accordance with the method statement approved.

Reason: In order to ensure that the character and appearance of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest is retained in accordance with Policies, EP35 and EP39 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of The Isle Of Man.

• C 7. No development shall commence until a scope for a 'building recording survey' to Level 2 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The subsequent survey work shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scope and fully implemented and a copy made available to the Department prior to development commencing. For the avoidance of doubt the recording shall be undertaken in accordance with Historic England's Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice (2016).

Reason: In order to ensure that the character and appearance of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest is retained in accordance with Policies, EP35 and EP39 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of The Isle Of Man.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information (all date stamped as having been received 21.12.18):

• o Drawing Number P-10-01 entitled, 'Existing Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections; Site Plan & Location Plan'
• o Drawing Number P-10-02 entitled, 'Proposed Floor Plans & Site Plan'
• o Drawing Number P-12-01 entitled, 'Proposed Elevations and Cross Sections'
• o Drawing Number P-12-02 entitled, Existing Street 'Elevations'
• o Drawing Number P-12-03 entitled, 'Proposed Street Elevations'
• o Document entitled, "Design Statement for Demolition of Rear Portion and Outbuildings
• of Existing Mixed Use Retail and Residential Property and Erection of Replacement Building incorporating Café/Restaurant at Basement & Ground Floor Level & 6 No. Apartments to First

Floor & Above at No.22-23 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM4 1HT for Mr. Dennis Rogers" and produced by Kay Associated Limited

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that Manx National Heritage and the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society 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): 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

It is recommended that both the owners and occupiers of No. 24 North Quay (Merchant House) 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): 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

THESE APPLICATIONS ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL, AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE AND BECAUSE THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YET ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

0.0 PRE-AMBLE - 0.1 The applicant is proposing works to three sites along North Quay:

• o 22-23 North Quay - Demolition of rear of site and construction of new build to link in to the converted front section to form café/bar/restaurant at ground & basement level, with 6 apartments above. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01329/B) together with a Registered Building Application in relation to the demolition works (18/01330/CON)) - the building is not registered, but is within a Conservation Area.
• o 25-26 North Quay - Complete demolition of existing buildings and erection of new building to incorporate part of a restaurant bar at ground floor level (to form one premises with the accommodation to be provided at ground floor in the adjacent building), with 6 apartments above. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01331/B) together with a Registered Building Application in relation to the demolition works (18/01332/CON)) - the building is not registered, but is within a Conservation Area and adjacent to a Registered Building.
• o 27-28 North Quay - Refurbishment and conversion into café/bar/restaurant at ground and first floor (to form one premises with the accommodation to be provided at ground floor in the adjacent building) with business hub/club on upper floor. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01333/B) together with a Registered Building Application (18/01334/CON))

• the building is registered.

0.2 In accordance with pre-application advice the applicant has submitted the applications independently but within the submissions explained why they are interdependent. They argue that the refurbishment of 27-28 North Quay would, in itself, be uneconomic and the return on both 22-23 and 25-26 North Quay are required in order to balance the financial outlay to convert the registered building. - 0.3 The application is accompanied by Financial Viability Figures which indicate that:

• o 22-23 North Quay would costs £1,564,250 (land purchase plus build costs) with sales values of £2,043,750 (£479,500 profit, less professional fees of 12% of build costs).
• o 25 - 26 North Quay would cost £1,441,750 (land purchase plus build costs) with sales values of £1,827,875 (£386,125 profit, less professional fees of 12% of build costs).
• o 27 - 28 North Quay would cost £1,335,500 (land purchase plus build costs) with sales values of £963,000 (£372,500 loss plus professional fees of 12% of build costs).
• o This would give an overall cost of £4,341,500 and total sales value of £4,834,625, which equates to a profit of £493,125 (11%) less professional fees of 12% of build costs.

0.4 There is a presumption against the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas, and therefore the greater the level of loss of historic fabric, the further the application moves from the broad policy position. - 0.5 It is important that the applications are considered together and in order, as the key questions include those set out below.

• o Are the proposed works to 27-28 North Quay not only acceptable but of considerable benefit?
• o Are the proposed works to 22-23 North Quay (partially demolition but retention of some historic fabric, including front façade) either: not only acceptable but of wider benefit; on balance acceptable on their own; or not acceptable but with concerns that are sufficiently
• offset by any identified benefit in relation to 27-28? o Are any concerns in relation to the proposed works to 25-26 North Quay (complete demolition) sufficiently outweighed by any identified benefit in relation to 27-28 (and potentially 22-23) North Quay?

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITES - 1.1 Broad Area

• 1.1.1 The three sites are within the North Quay Conservation Area within the centre of Douglas. They are bounded to the North by Queen Street and to the South by North Quay. The site is very close to the Lord Street bus stands and within walking distance of Douglas Town centre facilities. There are a number of other public and private car parks within the area
• 1.1.2 Queen Street has very limited formal footpath provision, whilst North quay is substantially pedestrianized, with some limited vehicle lay-by type parking for loading and disabled drivers. Queen Street provides access to a number of car parks and 'The Saddle' public house is located at the Eastern end at its junction with North Quay.
• 1.1.3 The red-line boundary for each of the three sites includes the buildings but does not include any of the adjacent pavement area on North Quay

1.2 Nos 22 - 23 (18/01329/B & 18/01330/CON)

• 1.2.1 The applicant has indicated that the existing No. 22-23 property consists of a traditional three-storey plus basement building facing North Quay, constructed of rendered Manx stone walls under pitched slated roof. To the rear is a later two-storey addition which houses a garage and rooms above, together with a three-storey rendered and pitched sate roofed former storage building. The site has a footprint of 188 square metres.
• 1.2.2 The applicant has noted that the application site is currently accessed via Queen Street to the rear and North Quay to the front (both having one-way direction of travel for vehicles). The application site currently has a garage and a storage building. The former is difficult to access safely and the latter has only pedestrian access.
• 1.2.3 The Registered Buildings Officer has indicated that the building dates to the 19th century probably mid. The buildings can be seen in historic photos of the quay, the building

makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area being traditional quayside buildings in their original context.

1.3 Nos 25 - 26 (18/01331/B & 18/01332/CON)

• 1.3.1 The applicants have indicated that the existing No. 25 property consists of a traditional four-storey building facing North Quay, constructed of rendered Manx stone walls under a pitched slated roof. To the rear is a number of single-storey additions which house a portion of sales floor, together with outbuilding stores, and which are constructed of Manx stone and brick under pitched slated roofs.
• 1.3.2 The applicants have indicated that the existing No. 26 property is a vacant site formed from the remnants of a former traditional four-storey building facing North Quay, but which had suffered a fire in the early part of the 20th Century, and which was substantially demolished in the 1960's. The North Quay elevation had been enclosed using a profiled asbestos cement agricultural sheet, and the roof has been created using profiled metal sheeting. The rear elevation is a mix of Manx stone and concrete blockwork. This section of the building was formerly used as a parking and delivery bay for the former 'Newsons' warehouse/shop.
• 1.3.3 The applicants have indicated that the combined site for No. 25-26 has a footprint of 128.41 square metres.
• 1.3.4 The applicants have indicated that The application site is currently accessed via Queen Street to the rear and North Quay to the front (both having one-way direction of travel for vehicles). No.25 is a shop with dwelling above. No.26 was a delivery bay and limited parking for the adjacent retail unit. The latter is difficult to access safely as entry was from North Quay and then exit via Queen Street which has very limited visibility.
• 1.3.5 The Registered Buildings Officer has indicated the building dates to the 19th century probably mid. The site also contains a vacant site which once was an identical building to the one still standing and probably constructed at the same time. The surviving building can be seen in historic photos of the quay, the building makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area being a traditional quayside building. The site is adjacent to the registered building the former Newsons' warehouse.

1.4 Nos 27 - 28 (18/01333/GB & 18/01330/CON)

• 1.4.1 The applicants have indicated that the existing No. 27 property consists of a traditional four-Storey warehouse building facing both North Quay and Queen Street to the rear, and is constructed of Manx stone walls under a pitched slated roof. The building has recently been registered, and is in a deteriorating condition.
• 1.4.2 The applicants have indicated that the property at No28 consists of a traditional twostorey building (with small cellar), which is currently accessed via No.27. The building is constructed of rendered and painted Manx stone walls under a pitched slate roof, and forms the corner of the junction of North Quay with Queen Street. The existing building has undergone significant alteration to its openings in the past, and is also in a poor state of repair.
• 1.4.3 The applicants have indicated that the combined site for No27-28 has a footprint of 168 square metres.
• 1.4.4 The applicants have indicated that the application site is currently accessed via pedestrian access from North Quay. The former retail use used the adjacent No. 26 for loading/parking.
• 1.4.5 The Registered Buildings Officer has commented that Newsons Warehouse, no 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century; they are important

survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular architecture particularly in an area that was substantially cleared in the 1930's. As historic quayside buildings they provide the character and context to the conservation area.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Overall Proposal

• 2.1.1 The applicant is proposing works to 3 sites.

• o 22-23 North Quay - Demolition of rear of site and construction of new build to link in to the converted front section to form café/bar/restaurant at ground & basement level, with 6 apartments above. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01329/B) together with a Registered Building Application in relation to the demolition works (18/01330/CON)) - the building is not registered, but is within a Conservation Area.
• o 25-26 North Quay - Complete demolition of existing buildings and erection of new building to incorporate part of a restaurant bar at ground floor level (to form one premises with the accommodation to be provided at ground floor in the adjacent building), with 6 apartments above. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01331/B) together with a Registered Building Application in relation to the demolition works (18/01332/CON)) - the building is not registered, but is within a Conservation Area.
• o 27-28 North Quay - Refurbishment and conversion into café/bar/restaurant at ground and first floor (to form one premises with the accommodation to be provided at ground floor in the adjacent building) with business hub/club on upper floor. A full planning application has been submitted (18/01333/B) together with a Registered Building Application (18/01334/CON))

• the building registered.

• 2.1.2 The applicant has indicated that there is a high financial cost of refurbishing and converting the former 'Newsons' warehouse registered building which could not be met from the redevelopment of the site in isolation. A development return on the other sites is therefore required to subsidise the outlay on the registered building. They note that there are no specific IOM policies to support such enabling development, but that it is vital in this case. A financial appraisal has been provided together with a structural survey of each building. The applicant has noted that whilst the applications are separate, this is based on pre-application advice that from an administration and implementation perspective, this would be more management for all parties (a view shared by officers) however they indicate their willingness for there to be a mechanism ensuring that the development would be carried out in its entirety (if approved).

2.2 Nos 22 - 23 (18/01329/B & 18/01330/CON)

• 2.2.1 The applicant proposes the retention of the North-Quay facing portion of the existing three storey-building (including basement, with the demolition of the rear portion. The applicant indicates they consider the proportion to be retained to make a positive contribution to the 'rise and fall' pattern in the buildings along North Quay. They indicate that the rear portion consists of a mix of later additions which are in poorer condition. Furthermore, the differing floor levels of these makes their conversion into a cohesive scheme more difficult.
• 2.2.2 The new development would comprise the creation of a café/bar/restaurant at ground floor and basement levels, with 6 apartments above. The following points are highlighted.

• o The café/bar/restaurant is likely to be in operation 7 days per week from 08:00 - 22:00 (09:00 - 15:00 on Sundays) with pedestrian access from North Quay. Deliveries would also be via North Quay (existing loading bays) with reuse collection from Queen Street.
• o The apartments would be a 1-Bed and 2-Bed to each of the first and second floors, with the third and fourth floor being converted into two 2-Bed Duplex apartments with an 'upside down' layout.
• o Access to the apartments is via entrances from both North Quay (front) and Queen Street (rear), although the latter is primarily for service (the refuse storage would be within a dedicated area accessed from Queen Street) and cycle parking. No vehicular parking spaces are proposed.

• o The retention of the front portion of the site to some extent dictates the internal floor levels, and as a result raised floor levels to mitigate flooding are not proposed, however alternative mitigation measures are proposed instead.
• o The proposals include provision of a disabled standard lift within the building (as well as stairs), although the lift does not go to the floor as this would result in the lift shaft protruding from the roof (raising concerns in terms of the impact on the Conservation Area).

• 2.2.3 The following points are noted from the applicant's design statement in relation to the fabric to be retained.

• o The existing window and door fenestration on the North Quay elevation would be retained, with dormer windows introduced to the roof level to allow for light and ventilation to the third floor bedroom.
• o The North Quay elevation would be re-rendered following repairs (including tying the front elevation to the side walls and replacement of rotten lintels). The re-rendering will not be a pristine finish but seek to retain the character of the building.
• o Windows and doors will be fully replaced, in timber sliding sashes or shop front formats.

• 2.2.4 The following points are noted from the applicant's design statement in relation to the new-build element of the scheme.

• o The rear of the site will be a new-build tied into the existing for stability.
• o It will be a five-story structure, the top floor of which sits 'behind' the roof slope from North Quay - to minimise impact and maintain the rise and fall of the roof line.
• o In developing the layout of the apartments, consideration has been given to the Hanover House apartment buildings, which are to the rear of the site and consist of three storeys of car parking (accessed from Queen Street with apartments above. The bedrooms to the apartments at 1st and 2nd floor level are to the rear and so face the car park. To the 3rd and 4th floor, the apartments are set back and the windows angled look back towards the centre of Douglas. This is intended to avoid overlooking.
• o The design of the proposals to the rear is more contemporary and the setting back of the upper floors, combined with use of contrasting material (including natural timber cladding to the bay features) for the bays, is intended to break down the mass and often the impact. The windows are to be polyester powder coated aluminium framed double glazed units with dark grey frames. Soffits and fascias will also be dark grey. This is intended to minimise the visibility of the portion of the fourth floor above the slated roof of the existing building to the North Quay elevation.

2.3 Nos 25 - 26 (18/01331/B & 18/01332/CON)

• 2.3.1 The applicant proposes the complete demolition of the existing properties. They consider the condition of No. 25 to be poor with structural defects which, whilst capable of repair, would be costly. Furthermore, they indicate that the layout would make incorporation into the layout of a larger redevelopment scheme difficult. They consider the existing No. 26 to be essentially a shell, as the original building was effectively lost in its original form some 50-60 years ago due to a fire. The building in its current form has limited original fabric other than a small portion of original wall at ground level on Queen Street. The fabric that encloses the delivery bay/parking area is corroded steel roller shutter ad profiled asbestos cement sheet to the North Quay elevation, and a mix of a small amount of Manx stones and un-rendered concrete common blockwork above the Queen Street elevation, the roof being profiled metal sheeting.
• 2.3.2 The replacement building would comprise seating/support areas for the bar/restaurant proposed in the adjacent building (see 18/01333/B) with 6 apartments above. The following points are highlighted.

• o The bar/restaurant is likely to be in operation 7 days per week from 08:00 - 23:00 (09:00 - 15:00 on Sundays) with pedestrian access from North Quay through the adjacent development. Deliveries would also be via North Quay (existing loading bays) with reuse collection from Queen Street.

• o The apartments would be a 1-Bed and 2-Bed to each of the first and second floors, with the third and fourth floors housing two 2-Bed Duplex apartments with an 'upside down' layout.
• o Access to the apartments is via entrances from both North Quay (front) and Queen Street (rear), although the latter is primarily for service (the refuse storage would be within a dedicated area accessed from Queen Street) and cycle parking. No vehicular parking spaces are proposed.
• o Although new build, the link between the ground floor use and the adjacent site (a registered building to be retained and converted) to some extent dictates the internal floor levels, and as a result raised floor levels to mitigate flooding are not proposed, however alternative mitigation measures are proposed instead.
• o The proposals include provision of a disabled standard lift within the building (as well as stairs), although the lift does not go to the floor as this would result in the lift shaft protruding from the roof (raising concerns in terms of the impact on the Conservation Area).

• 2.3.3 The following points are noted from the applicant's design statement.

• o The demolition of the existing buildings has allowed a design which maximises the potential of the site. Whilst financial considerations are not normally a material consideration, as this is enabling works for the conversion of Nos 27-28 it is argued by the applicant that it is in this case.
• o The design is intended to be contemporary but with regard to context. The height/massing has been considered and the fourth floor being effectively within the roofspace, the eves level of the proposed siting below that of the adjacent Merchants House at No 24 and above that at the former Newsons warehouse, to create a natural transition.
• o The North Quay elevation consists of a rendered plinth to the ground floor level which reflects the strong linear line running along the adjacent buildings. Above this the walls are proposed to be Staffordshire blue brindled clay facing brick laid in a Flemish bond pattern. This is intended to be complimentary to the colour and hues of the aged Manx stone on the adjacent warehouse building and to contribute a quality of detail and interest to the wall.
• o The fenestration of the window and door openings are contemporary but with references to the surrounding buildings. There are a number of large, generally square, window openings framed with projecting lead surrounds, which reflect the shape of the windows on the adjacent warehouse building. Within the larger window surround shape, the windows are divided into two windows, the larger of which follows the 'golden section' ratio fund on the adjacent Merchant's House (and other buildings). The windows are organised in a pattern which reflects the verticality on the adjacent buildings but with a haphazard element to reflect the window pattern on the adjacent warehouse building.
• o In developing the layout of the apartments, consideration has been given to the twostorey car park of the former MEA building (accessed partly from Queen Street and partly Lord Street).
• o The bedrooms to the apartments at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor level are to the rear and so face the car park. They will have an outlook over the car park towards the centre of Douglas. Due to the obliqueness of the angle between the proposed apartments and the upper floors of 'The Saddle' public house on the opposite side and further down Queen Street, overlooking is not anticipated to be a concern.
• o The larger windows to the duplex apartments have projecting surrounds taken through two floors, the spandrel panel between floors to be finished in a faceted glazed brick, to provide a textural and colour highlight and to reference the glazed tiles elsewhere on North Quay and 'The Bridge' Public House.
• o The design at the rear is also contemporary and maintains the palette of materials with render to the ground floor level, with Flemish bond clay facing brickwork above. The fenestration is maintained on this elevation, recognising that views of the rear will be seen from the direction of the Town Hall. Chimneys are incorporated at roof level to both gables at front and rear, to disguise the central flat roof and this, along with the small section of tile hanging on the Eastern facing gable, provide a modelling of the gable when viewed travelling North along South Quay or North down Head road, where prominent views of the proposal will exist.

• o The windows are to be polyester powder coated aluminium framed double-glazed units, in a dark grey frame colour. The roof is to be finished in natural slate, and rainwater gutters and downpipes will be in a cast aluminium material finished in polyester powder coating.

2.4 Nos 27 - 28 (18/01333/GB & 18/01330/CON)

• 2.4.1 The site is a Registered Building in a poor state of repair. The proposal is to convert the ground and 1st floor into a bar/restaurant. The ground floor would have the kitchen (with staff entrance into Queen Street created by expanding a previous window), restaurant seating within 27 and a linked bar area within 28 (including door opening to the Eastern elevation replacing the existing window opening). The first floor would have restaurant seating. The 2nd and 3rd floors (No. 27 only) would be used for a Business Club/Hot Desk. No parking is proposed, although bicycle and bin storage would be provided by the adjacent and linked development at No 25-26. A fire exit would be provided to Queen Street. There are a number of original openings to Queen Street which have been blocked up and would be re-opened.
• 2.4.2 To the North Quay elevation the ground floor window of No.28 would be replaced by two windows and a door. A previous window opening would be reused and the window to the Western side of No.27 would be replaced with two new openings. The central column openings would be reconfigured.
• 2.4.3 The existing external walls which are Manx stone would be cleaned and repointed. Existing render would be hacked off and re-rendered using smooth finish lime applied to the substrate stone. The historic corbel course is to be reinstated. The gable to the historic loading bay is to be re-clad in treated timber. The timber 'winch housing' is to be reinstated.
• 2.4.4 The existing slate roof to No.27 is to be stripped and re-laid over existing timber roof structure. Existing slates to roof of No.28 to be repaired.
• 2.4.5 Replacement windows are to be double glazed timber framed windows are to be used. Windows to be retained (Queen Street elevation) would be repaired in-situ and re-glazed with new opaque single glazed panes. Doors will be timber. Gutters and downpipes to be polyester powder coated aluminium in dark grey colour.
• 2.4.6 The application is accompanied by a Structural Assessment Report by the Morton Partnership (October 2018). This considers the condition of the existing buildings and the structural implications of the proposals. It concludes in relation to 27 and 28 North Quay that "the imposed loading for the proposed use is less than original, therefore the structure is deemed to be able to transfer the propose load) (4.2.2.5).

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 In relation to Nos 22 - 23 (18/01329/B & 18/01330/CON) it is noted that there was an unimplemented approval (14/01243/B) for Conversion of existing shop, dwelling and warehouse to offices given in December 2014 which has now lapsed. - 3.2 A previous application for 22-23 North Quay was refused (17/01320/B) which proposed the total demolition and replacement of the building. This was refused for a number of reasons, as set out below. An appeal has been submitted but is in abeyance pending the outcome of the above applications.

• o "R1. The proposal by way of its layout, scale, form and design would have a significant deleterious impact on the character and quality of the streetscene and is considered to be contrary to General policy 2 (b); (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 .
• o R2. The proposed design of the front façade would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance within Conservation Area within which it is located and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• o R3. The application site is identified as being within a flood risk area and there is no flood risk assessment put forward or mitigating design measurers to protect occupants of the

• building or the building itself to address the concerns of flood risk, it is therefore contrary to EP10 and GP2(l).
• o R4. In the absence of any evidence for consideration to override the general presumption to retain building in this conservation area, the proposal would be considered contrary to EP39 and PP 1/01 as there is no justification to warrant an exception for demolition.
• o R5. The design of the proposal in relation to the access to the residential apartments does not take account of personal safety or security and so is considered contrary to Strategic Plan policy GP2(m)".

3.3 No relevant applications in relation to the other sites have been identified.

4.0 POLICY - 4.1 All three sites are within an area shown on the Douglas Local Plan (1998) as mixed use. They are within the North Quay Conservation Area. No.27-28 is included on the List of Registered Buildings (No.289). They are within an area identified as high tidal flood risk on the 2017 maps. - 4.2 The relevant parts of General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategy Plan (2016) should be considered, as per the extracts below.

"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: …

• (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; …

• (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; … (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption".

4.3 In addition, the following policies of the IOM Strategy Plan (2016) are also considered relevant.

• o Strategic Policy 1 (StP1) indicates that best use should be made of previously developed land and unused buildings, and that development should be located to make best use of infrastructure, facilities and services.

• o Strategic Policy 2 (StP2) directs development to existing towns and villages.
• o Strategic Policy 3 (StP3) indicates regard should be had to the use of local materials and character.
• o Strategic Policy 4 (StP4) protects the fabric and setting of Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas
• o Strategic Policy 5 (StP5) indicates new development should be designed to make a positive contribution and design statements should be provided in some cases.
• o Strategic Policy 10 (SPt10) relates to transport issues

• o Strategic Policy 12 (SPt12) encourages the creation of flats by conversion of vacant or underused space above commercial premises.
• o Spatial Policy 1 (SP1) indicates that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the island.
• o General Policy 4 (GP4) indicates that where appropriate S.13 agreements will be used.
• o Environment Policy 4 (EP4) protects biodiversity, including Protected Species.
• o Environment Policy 10 (EP10) and 11 (EP11) indicates floodrisk assessments may be required and that development which would result in unacceptable risk from flooding (on or off site) will not be permitted.
• o Environment Policy 32 (EP32) indicates that alterations to a Registered Building which would detrimentally affect its character will not be permitted.
• o Environment Policy 33 (EP33) indicates that the change of use of a Registered Building will only be permitted if the proposed use is appropriate and any alterations associated with it are not detrimental to the character of the building.
• o Environment Policy 33 (EP34) indicates that the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings the use of traditional materials will be preferred
• o Environment Policy 35 (EP35) indicates that development within Conservation Areas must preserve or enhance the character.
• o Environment Policy 39 indicates a presumption in favour of retaining buildings within Conservation Areas which make a positive contribution and, at paragraphs 7.32.1 and 7.32.2 set out the tests for assessing the acceptability of proposed demolitions.
• o Environment Policies 40 and 41 relate to archaeology.
• o Environment Policy 42 indicates new development within existing settlements should take account of the particular character and identify of the immediate locality.
• o Housing Policy 4 directs new housing to existing towns and villages.
• o Housing Policy 17 indicates the conversion of buildings into flats will be permitted in residential areas provided there is sufficient amenity space, outlook and either the creation of parking or an overall traffic management strategy.
• o Business Policy 1 (BP1) supports the growth of employment opportunities.
• o Business Policy 7 (BP7) supports the creation of new office floorspace within town and village centres and in buildings of acknowledged historic interest.
• o Community Policies 10 (CP10) and 11 CP11) relate to fire safety.
• o Transport Policy 1 (TP1) indicates new development should be located close to public transport facilities and routed.
• o Transport Policy 7 (TP7) indicates that the parking standards as set out in appendix 7 should be met.
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 (IP5) relates to water conservation.
• o Energy Policy 5 (EP5) relates to energy usage

4.4 The Area Plan for the East (TAPE) has reached publication draft stage. It is therefore capable of being a material consideration, particularly in relation to the overall direction of travel, but the weight to be attached to it is reduced given the relatively early stage in the process and potential for changes to it. The quay area is included as Mixed Use Area 7 with a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure type uses on North Quay (Mixed Use Proposal 7). The plan also supports the creation of living accommodation on the upper stories of buildings within Douglas Town Centre (Urban Environment Proposal 1). - 4.5 The Central Douglas Masterplan (CDM) has been approved for use both as a material consideration in its own right and as evidence base for TAPE (with its proposals to be tested, refined and implemented through TAPE). North Quay is identified as 'quayside' with support for the promotion of leisure uses to evolved the offer of high quality dining within Douglas. - 4.6 It should also be noted that S.16 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in assessing works which may affect registered building or its settings and S.18 requires decision

• makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation area in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act
• 4.7 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man includes policies in relation to the following.

• o General criteria for registered building applications (PPS1-RB3)
• o Proposals for change of use of registered buildings (PPS1-RB4)
• o Alteration of Registered Buildings (PPS1-RB5)
• o A presumption against the Demolition of Registered Buildings (PPS1-RB6)
• o Recording of Buildings prior to Demolition (PPS1-RB7)
• o Access for persons with disabilities (PPS1-RB8)
• o Giving Special Consideration to Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/2)
• o Presumption against the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/6)

4.8 Policy 5 of Planning Circular 1/98: The Alteration and Replacement of Windows relates to registered buildings.

5.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES - 5.1 Local Authority

• 5.1.1 Douglas Borough Council has responded to all 6 applications requesting a deferral until after the matter has been discussed at the Council's Environmental Services Committee on the 18.02.19 (11.01.19). The Council were e-mailed on 07.02.19 to confirm that the intention is for the applications to be considered at Planning Committee on the 4th March, and so requesting any comments by the 27.02.19 (any comments received will be reported via verbal update). In particular the Council's views were sought in relation to:

• o Any views on the extent to whether the proposals support (or do not support) wider aspirations for the area with the Council may have
• o Whether it will be acceptable for access to the bin storage areas being from Queen Street
• o Confirmation that any pavement seating which may be proposed (none is included within the applications) would be controlled by separate legislation, which I understood is administered by the Council

5.2 Government Departments

• 5.2.1 DOI Confirmed No Highways Interest (07.01.19) for the three Registered Buildings applications (18/01330/CON, 18/01332/CON and 18/01334/CON).

• 5.2.2 In relation to 18/01329/B, 18/01331/B and 18/01333/B they note (07.02.19) that some of the existing site access arrangements would remain. They note the issues with the existing parking in relation to visibility and manoeuvring issues. They indicate that although there is no parking to be provided (10 spaces being required for 6 apartments) they note the location and availability of public transport. They request a condition to secure the cycle storage, requiring details of secure fixings.
• 5.2.3 They indicate that the proposed traffic management arrangements for the construction period are not approved as this would need to be agreed separately with DOI Highways Services under highway legislation. They indicate that the proposed external seating area for the cafe bar is not agreed as the applicant would need to obtain approval from Douglas Borough Council for a pavement cafe on the public highway, and Highway Services would be consulted on this. They do not oppose the applications subject to a condition in relation to cycle parking.
• 5.2.4 In relation to 18/01331/B they note (07.02.19) the existing site arrangements would change but pedestrian access would be maintained to the front and rear. They note that no parking is to be

• 5.2.5 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has provided comments in relation to each of the applications and indicates support subject to conditions (the detail of the comments are within sections 1 and 6). However, he does state, "The overall success of the scheme should also be measured by the bringing of the buildings and the other elements of the wider scheme including the registered building back into use. This has been put forward both for the part loss of the existing buildings and proposed height of the new. It is therefore only correct that this benefit is secured via a legal agreement to prevent the occupation of the building until such time as the registered building has been repaired and the approved works completed".
• 5.2.6 DEFA Ecology (25.01.19) have responded and made the same comments for each application. They recommend that Bat Surveys are undertaken of all buildings prior to demolition and, if found the Department contacted and suitable protection or mitigation put in place. It indicates that the process of undertaking roost surveys will be challenging given the inaccessible entry points. No details of the working methods are provided and this is a concern as demolition could result in the destruction of unidentified bat roosts, which is an offence under section 9 of the Wildlife Act 1990. Surveys are requested prior to determination of the application. If approval is given, a condition is requested stating that a licensed bat worker be brought onto the site at sensitive stages in the demolition process (removal and alteration to roofs, chimneys and walls) to check for bats not picked up by the survey. If bats are found works must stop and actions taken.
• 5.2.7 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been consulted on 07.02.19 and asked for comments by 27.02.19 - any comments received will be reported via verbal update (along with an assessment for Interested Person Status).

5.3 Other Organisations

• 5.3.1 Manx National Heritage has commented on all six applications (21.01.19). They state that, "We welcome and support the fundamental point that the Registered Buildings on the site are to be retained and refurbished in order to find a sustainable use for the future. We accept that a level of enabling development is required by the developer to fund this. We accept that this includes an element of demolition. Notwithstanding the comments that demolition of less significant and recent elements of the site is acceptable, it would be helpful if there was a better documentation of exactly what is proposed and how this relates to the detail of the Registration. For the avoidance of doubt this should be marked on a plan and/or elevation drawings. Consideration should be given to what records are kept of the structures to be demolished".

• 5.3.2 Manx National Heritage also highlight the potential of the buildings to provide bat habitat and note that there are records of several species within the local area. They highlight the protection afforded by the Wildlife Act (1990) and recommend that a bat survey is undertaken prior to the commencement of any works.
• 5.3.3 Manx Utilities have responded in relation to 18/01333/GB (Nos. 27-28) (24.01.19) and indicate that they have reviewed the flood risk assessment. They consider that demountable defences require a considerable amount of pre-planning to ensure that they can provide an effective defence. If this option does forward to design it is essential that the operational resources, storage facilities and the logistics of deployment are fully appreciated by anyone planning to rely on them. The development proposals comprise 'Less Vulnerable' uses only. Planning approval should come with a condition that only 'Less Vulnerable' uses are to be situated on the ground floor and it should remain this way through the development's lifetime.
• 5.3.4 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society have commented on all 6 applications.

• 5.3.5 In relation to 18/01329/B and 18/01330/CON they state (10.02.19), "The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society welcomes the retention of the North Quay frontage of these buildings as against the previous proposal (PA 17/01320/B) for their total demolition, and supports this application. Whilst not totally supportive of the increase in height at the rear, the Society recognises that this will have limited impact on the street scene. While not in a position to comment in detail on the financial figures submitted, the Society would comment that most pre-1920 buildings, whether or not Registered buildings, whether or not In Conservation Areas in towns or in the country are traditionally stone built, with slate roofs and timber windows and doors / door frames. The majority are fairly simple in style. While fully recognising the applicants wish to emphasise the interdependence of the three proposals financially the Society would emphasise that there is nothing noted in the proposal that really shouts that the cost of its maintenance / refurbishment is anything more than that of any traditional pre 1920 building in the Isle of Man. The Society is concerned that the applicant is attempting to give too much emphasis to what could be considered to be routine maintenance/ repair costs of the building; furthermore it is not clear whether the increased cost for refurbishment is any way a reflection of the imposition of VAT. If this goes un-noted or unnoticed it sets a bad precedent for maintenance of other traditional buildings whether or not they have any individual status in terms of being Registered or in a Conservation Area. It is noted that the photographs included in the application, particularly internally, reflect very much a condition survey. Should the application be approved the Society would wish a condition be added requiring recording of the buildings as is in terms of a historic building and architecture survey i.e. whole room / roof structure photographs, not just selected details".
• 5.3.6 In relation to 18/01331/B and 18/01332/CON they state, "Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society are conscious that this proposal involves demolition and redevelopment in the conservation area immediately adjoining a Registered Building (RB 289 former Newson's warehouse). The proposal involves two buildings, one still upstanding, which traditionally appear to have had in part shop style frontages at ground floor level with residential style (No 25) and warehouse (No 26) frontages above - please see two photographs attached below. While the Society is fully supportive of the intended use of 25-26 North Quay, it is concerned that the proposed North Quay front elevation results in an unnecessary jumble of window style intermixing /alternating what might be contemporary residential and warehouse design. Coupled with the increased height the proposed redevelopment will, in the Society's opinion, dominate over and detract from the relative simplicity of the Registered Building frontage of the former Newson's warehouse next door. Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society would respectfully suggest that the proposed North Quay frontage of Nos 25 and 26 should be redesigned to result in a more traditional layout of windows and doors, possibly retaining the frontage of No 25, and to reduce the proposals dominance over Nos 27-28. No 25 is understood to have been Parrs Bank, possibly the first purpose built bank in Douglas, and it is therefore doubly unfortunate that all trace of this history is proposed to be lost. Isle of Man Natural history & Antiquarian Society therefore object to this proposal. While not in a position to comment in detail on the financial figures submitted, the Society would comment that most pre-1920 buildings, whether or not Registered buildings, whether or not In Conservation Areas in towns or in the country are traditionally stone built, with slate roofs and timber windows and doors / door frames. The majority are fairly simple in style. In the opinion of the Society there does not appear to be anything in No 25 which really shouts that the cost of its maintenance / refurbishment is anything more than that of any traditional pre 1920 building in the Isle of Man. The Society is concerned that the applicant is attempting to give too much emphasis to what could be considered to be routine maintenance/ repair costs of a building; furthermore it is not clear whether the increased cost for refurbishment is any way a reflection of the imposition of VAT. If this goes un-noted or unnoticed it sets a bad precedent for maintenance of other

• traditional buildings whether or not they have any individual status in terms of being Registered or in a Conservation Area. It is noted that the photographs included in the application, particularly internally, reflect very much a condition survey. Should the application be approved the Society would wish a condition be added requiring recording of the buildings as is, particularly No 25, in terms of a historic building and architecture survey i.e. whole room / roof structure photographs, not just selected details".
• 5.3.7 In relation to 18/01333/GB and 18/01334/CON they state, "The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society fully supports the intended use of Newson's Registered Building at 27-28 North Quay. The Society also notes the comments of the Registered Buildings Officer and, particularly with regard to windows, hopes that these will be supported. The Society would also suggest that existing internal fireplaces as in ground floor of the twostorey building should be carefully opened up to see if they reveal any older features , and, if so, that these are recorded. It is noted that the photographs included in the application, particularly internally, reflect very much a condition survey. Should the application be approved the Society would wish a condition be added requiring recording of the buildings as is in terms of a historic building and architecture survey i.e. whole room / roof structure photographs, not just selected details. While not in a position to comment in detail on the financial figures submitted, the Society would comment that most pre-1920 buildings, whether or not Registered buildings, whether or not In Conservation Areas in towns or in the country are traditionally stone built, with slate roofs and timber windows and doors / doorframes. The majority are fairly simple in style. While fully supporting the Registered Building Status, in the opinion of the Society there does not appear to be anything in the Newson's building which really shouts that the cost of its maintenance / refurbishment is anything more than that of any traditional pre 1920 building in the Isle of Man. Grants for Registered buildings were only given for maintenance / repair of features over and above what would be expected for a non- Registered building, not for standard maintenance / repair. The Society is concerned that the applicant is attempting to give too much emphasis to what could be considered to be routine maintenance/ repair costs of the building; furthermore it is not clear whether the increased cost for refurbishment is any way a reflection of the imposition of VAT. If this goes un-noted or unnoticed it sets a bad precedent for maintenance of other traditional buildings whether or not they have any individual status in terms of being Registered or in a Conservation Area".

5.4 Other Comments

• 5.4.1 Two comments have been received from members of the public. These both reference all 6 applications and so have been assessed within this report (and for Interested Person Status) accordingly.

• 5.4.2 The occupier of Merchants House, 24 North Quay (28.01.19) indicate they are generally supportive of the applications, noting that 22-23 and 25-28 are in disrepair and they welcome action to prevent further deterioration. They also indicate that the revised plans are much more in keeping with the area and will enhance North Quay. They have concerns about impacts during development in relation to: access to 24 front, rear and car park, disruption to utilities, disruption from noise and pollution, access to the oil tank and refuse bins at rear, damage to 24 from works that may prove disruptive to our business, traffic flow during and post development, disruption to daily business. They ask to have sight of the Construction Management Plan and Traffic Survey. They feel traffic generated by the development may be more than the additional 2 cars and 3 delivery vans per day, in addition to traffic currently servicing North Quay businesses that back onto Queen Street. They would object to smoking outside Nos22-23 and 25-26 for health reasons, noting that No. 24 is South facing and with large windows open throughout the year and they wish to protect staff and visitors from cigarette smoke. They indicate they would object to external seating to 22-23 where the

• pavement is at its narrowest as they believe it would create an obstruction to pedestrians and be disruptive to their working environment.
• 5.4.3 The owner of Merchant House, 24 North Quay (29.01.19) indicate they are generally supportive of the site development, noting that 22-23 and 25-28 are in disrepair and they welcome action to prevent further deterioration. They also indicate that the revised plans are much more in keeping with the area and will enhance North Quay. Their concerns are: damage to No.24 from works to adjoining sites, to the party walls within 23 and 25 and from foundation excavation; access to rear and front of 24, oil tank and refuse bins; disruption to utilities and to tenants from noise and pollution; and traffic flow during and post development. They indicate that traffic from 98 restaurant seats, bar 12 apartments and a business centre, extra refuse collection will be additional to traffic servicing the Waterfront and Sea loft apartments, Quayside Café and 14 North which back onto Queen Street. Loading from Queen Street could block traffic accessing traffic lights on Quines Corner into Lord Street, traffic along North Quay from eastern and Westerly directions, and block access to car parking off Queen Street. To their tenants and visitors from cigarette smoke, they object to smoking outside No.22-23 and 25-26 for health reasons. No. 24 is south facing with large windows. They object to external seating to No.22-23 as the pavement is narrow and could cause an obstruction to pedestrians and be disruptive to their tenants. To address their concerns they ask that the Construction Management Plan (including demolition and traffic survey) be submitted prior to application determination.
• 5.4.4 In accordance with the Standing Orders, a comment has been received from a member of the Planning Committee in relation to 18/01329/B requesting it be brought before the committee (04.01.19). This is not a representation as such and so is noted but has not been assessed for Interested Person Status.
• 5.5 Further consultation

• 5.5.1 In addition to the potential for further responses as outlined above, the applicant submitted an amended design statement in relation to applications No 25-26 (applications 18/01333/GB and 18/01334/CON). The plans are unchanged. This has been drawn to the attention of the Registered Buildings Officer who has confirmed that his comments are unaffected. The information will be drawn to the attention of the other persons who have commented and any revised/additional comments will be brought to the attention of the committee as part of a verbal update.
• 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Main Issues

• 6.1.1 It is considered that the main issues in the assessment of this application are as follows.

• o Principle (StP1, StP12, SP1, HP4, BP1, BP7, TP1, TAPE, CDM)
• o Design (GP2.b, GP2.c, StP3, St5, EP34, EP42)
• o Loss of Historic Fabric (EP39)
• o Impact on Conservation Area (StP4, EP34, EP35)
• o Impact on Registered Building (and its setting) (StP4, EP32, EP33, EP34, BP7)
• o Impact on neighbouring properties (GP2.g)
• o Amenity for Future Occupants (GP2.h, HP17)
• o Parking (including bikes), Highway Safety, Access to Public Transport and Pedestrians (GP2.h, GP2.i, StP10, HP17, TP7)
• o Flooding (GP2.l, EP10, EP13)
• o Protected Species (GP2.d, EP4)
• o Archaeology (EP40 and 41)
• o Fire Safety (CP10, CP11), Water Usage (IP5) and energy efficiency (GP2.n, EP5)
• o Provision of Services (GP2.j)
• o Community Safety (GP2.m)
• o Affordable Housing (HP5) and Open Space (RP3)

6.2 Principle (StP1, StP12, SP1, HP4, BP1, BP7, TP1, TAPE, CDM)

• 6.2.1 The development would take place within Douglas, which is at the top of the settlement hierarchy and so a focus for housing, employment and leisure. The proposals would provide residential units within an area well served by facilities and public transport, and increase the leisure offer within the centre of Douglas. They would reuse existing buildings/Previously Developed Land and result in an efficient use of the site, with ground floor commercial uses and flats on higher floors.

6.3 Design (GP2.b, GP2.c, StP3, St5, EP34, EP42)

• 6.3.1 The proposal complies with SP5 because a design statement has been provided and a clear approach has been taken to make an overall contribution to the streetscene. It is noted that whilst the Isle of Man Antiquarian Society raises concerns about the design for No.25-26, there is broad support from the owner/occupier of the neighbouring property and the comments of the Registered Buildings Officer are also noted.

• 6.3.2 The impact of the works on Nos.22-23 are considered acceptable. The changes to the North Quay elevation are considered in more detail in relation to impact on the Conservation Area (below) and the rear elevation is less prominent but is considered to be acceptable.
• 6.3.3 The design of the replacement building for Nos. 25-26 is considered to be appropriate. The proposals comply with SP3 and EP34 because the materials have been selected as part of a design which contains contemporary elements but reflects the context of the sites.
• 6.3.4 The works to the Registered Building are considered to be acceptable in broad design terms and considered in more detail below.

6.4 Loss of Historic Fabric (EP39, PPS1-RB6, PPS1-RB7, PPS1-CA6)

• 6.4.1 Paragraphs 7.32.1 and 7.32.2 of the IOM Strategic Plan (2016) state,

"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. Buildings which are subject to other controls, are summarised below:

• a) Registered buildings;
• b) a building for the time being the subject of a preservation order under Section 11 of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act 1959;
• c) a building for the time being included in the list of monuments prepared under Section 13 of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act;
• d) any buildings, a description of which is specified in a direction issued by the Department under Section 19 sub-section (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, which are by virtue of such direction, excluded for the time being from an order designating a Conservation Area; or
• e) buildings which are known to be the place of shelter for protected species or be used for nesting by a protected bird (Wildlife Act 1990)

• 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".

No 22-23 (18/01329/B and 18/01330/CON)

• 6.4.2 The application is accompanied by a Structural Assessment Report by the Morton Partnership (October 2018). This concludes that both the front and rear elevations appear to be in satisfactory structural condition. It highlights a number of issues (such as damp), remedial actions which are required and areas where further investigations may be required.
• 6.4.3 In relation to Nos. 22-23 (18/01329/B & 18/01330/CON) the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has commented in relation to the loss of the existing fabric,

"I consider the buildings to be of interest and to contribute to the character of the conservation area, and the proposals will retain part of these buildings but not all and will result in the loss of internal features such as staircases. This application should not be seen in isolation and should been viewed in connection with the applications previously mentioned above. A case has been made by the applicants that; given the condition of the surviving structures to the rear, the viability in relation to the repair and reuse of the registered building, that in order for the overall scheme to be achieved, the existing structures needs to be part demolished. The buildings are neither registered nor proposed to be so I do not offer comment on the loss of interior features. It is clear that the elements proposed to be demolished particularly the rear elevation have been altered, are in need of repair and make minimal contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. I consider the heritage benefits of the wider scheme, in this instance, outweigh the heritage loss associated with the part demolition of the buildings. I therefore do not object to the part demolition of the buildings subject to an appropriate scheme of building recording".

No 25-26 (18/01331/B and 18/01333/CON)

• 6.4.4 The application is accompanied by a Structural Assessment Report by the Morton Partnership (October 2018). This considers the condition of the existing buildings and the structural implications of the proposals. It concludes in relation to 25 and 26 North Quay that "the proposal appears to be structurally feasible (4.1.3). It recommends various works to Nos 25-26 (in the event that it is retained) and does not indicate that the buildings are incapable of repair.
• 6.4.5 In relation to Nos. 25-26 (18/01331/B & 18/01332/CON) the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has commented in relation to the loss of the existing buildings,

"I consider the building to be of interest and to contribute to the character of the conservation area, ideally the building should be kept. This application should not be seen in isolation and should been viewed in connection with the applications previously mentioned above. A case has been made by the applicants that; given the condition of the surviving structure, the viability in relation to the repair and reuse of the adjacent registered building and incorporation of this sites into one, that in order for the overall scheme to be achieved, the existing structure needs to be demolished. I consider the heritage benefits of the wider scheme, in this instance outweigh the heritage loss associated with the demolition of the building. I therefore do not object to the demolition of the building subject to an appropriate scheme of building recording".

• 6.4.6 The comments from MNH and the Isle of Man Antiquarian Society are also noted.

6.5 Impact on Conservation Area (StP4, EP34, EP35, PPS1-CA2)

• 6.5.1 In relation to Nos 22-23 (18/01329/B & 18/01330/CON), the DEFA Registered Buildings has commented,

"The proposals have been drawn up and follow on from pre-application advice. The required additional storey has been put forward as necessary in terms of viability for the overall project. The additional storey is located behind the front elevation and is set back to minimise the

visual impact. The additional height is still below that of the neighbouring properties and I consider the overall heritage benefits of the scheme to outweigh the harm cause to the character and appearance of the conservation area by the proposed interventions. Given the sensitively of the site it is important that all the proposed materials are conditioned so to safeguard the quality of the development and ensure its compatibility with the conservation area. As the new building will require part demolition of the existing buildings, conditions are required to ensure the construction will not adversely impact upon the structural integrity of the remaining elements of the structures".

• 6.5.2 In relation to Nos 25-26 (18/01331/B & 18/01332/CON), the DEFA Registered Buildings has commented,

"The proposals have been drawn up and follow on from pre-application advice. Although contemporary in nature I consider the scheme to take inspiration form the surrounding buildings without replicating them. This can be seen in the use of materials and fenestration. Ideally the scale of the building would be reduced to bring the building closer in scale to the registered building. The required additional storey has been put forward as necessary in terms of viability for the overall project and once again I consider the overall heritage benefits of the scheme to out-weight the harm cause by the proposed scale of the building. Given the sensitively of the site it is important that all the proposed materials are conditioned so to safeguard the quality of the development and ensure its compatibility with the conservation area. As the new building will be built against and up to the registered building, conditions are required to ensure the construction will not adversely impact upon the structural integrity of the registered building".

• 6.5.3 The comments from MNH and the Isle of Man Antiquarian Society are also noted.

6.6 Impact on Registered Building (and its setting) (StP4, EP32, EP33, EP34, BP7, PPS1RB3, PPS1-RB4, PPS1-RB5, PPS1-RB7, PPS1-RB8, Circular 1/98)

• 6.6.1 In relation to Nos 27-28 (18/01333/GB & 18/01334/CON), the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has commented,

"The building has been vacant for the last year and requires substantial repair and maintenance in order to secure its long term future. The proposals to convert the building into to use as a bar/restaurant and business hub are the result of pre-application discussions. The applicant has taken on board advice given by me in relation to the significance of the building. I consider the scheme to be respectful of the buildings floor plan and surviving historic fabric that will enable the historic use of the building to be understood. Although the scheme will result in the loss of an internal staircase, given the limited contribution of this staircase to the historic or architectural interest of the building and considering the benefits of the proposals I do not object to this loss. The proposals require further information/details and confirmation/approval of materials and I have therefore recommended a number of conditions be attached, should you be minded to approve the application. The plans show proposed windows with trickle vents expressed on the frame, which are not appropriate for a registered building, if trickle vents are a requirement these should be hidden in the frame of the window and not visible, in addition the proposed sash window types show an applied glazing bar, applied glazing bars are not appropriate for a registered building, glazing bars should be integral to the window. The buildings new use will require the introduction of new services and while it is understood that the majority will be incorporated into the adjacent new build, further information is required of this and also in relation to proposed structural openings and other details materials and finishes. I consider the proposals to be in accordance with the above legislation, policy and guidance and therefore support the proposals on heritage grounds and recommend the application is approved subject to conditions".

• 6.6.2 The comments from MNH and the Isle of Man Antiquarian Society are also noted.

6.7 Impact on neighbouring properties (GP2.g)

• 6.7.1 The Café/Bar/Restaurant/Bar at Nos. 22-23 North Quay is likely to be in operation daily 8:00 - 22:00 (with shorter hours on a Sunday) with that at 25-28 similar hours (an hour later Monday - Saturday). Conditions could be imposed to ensure that reasonable hours are not exceeded- and it is suggested that this should be up to 23:00 (Monday - Saturday) for all sites.

• 6.7.2 The occupiers and owners of Merchants House (No. 24) both raise concerns about impacts during construction, including disruption, traffic and damage to No. 24 from the demolition of No. 25. The disruption from construction impacts of a development are not normally a material consideration. Although most Building Control functions within Douglas are administered by Douglas Borough Council, demolition notices are still required to be sent to DEFA's Building Control who review them. It is therefore considered that this matter is sufficiently controlled under separate legislation. It is not considered necessary to require a construction management plan either prior to determination or by condition.

• 6.7.3 They also raise concerns about general traffic impacts. However, as the developments do not propose any parking the impacts are considered to primarily result from deliveries (which are to be via North Quay and this could be ensured via condition) and waste deliveries (which would be via Queen Street). It should be noted that the proposals would replace existing uses and so it is necessary to consider the net change in movements (if the current lawful uses were taken up), and this is considered likely to be negligible. It is not considered that further traffic surveys are required (it is noted that DOI Highway Services have not requested this information).
• 6.7.4 The applications do not propose any external smoking areas. With any use, there is the potential that people will stand outside the doors and smoke (and indeed as the pavement is outside any member of the public could do this) and so this is not regarded as a material consideration in this case.
• 6.7.5 Similarly, the applications do not propose any external seating (the redline boundary does not include any of the pavement). It is understood that pavement seating is controlled under other legislation administered by Douglas Borough Council. This concern is not considered to relate to the application is such a way as to be considered a material consideration.

6.8 Amenity for Future Occupants (GP2.h, HP17)

• 6.8.1 In relation to the residential, the proposals do not provide any outside amenity space or parking, but do provide for bicycle parking and bin storage. Given the nature of the location this is considered acceptable. The proposals would provide an acceptable outlook.

6.9 Parking (including bikes), Highway Safety, Access to Public Transport and Pedestrians (GP2.h, GP2.i, StP10, HP17, TP7)

• 6.9.1 No.26 was previously used as a delivery bay and for limited parking for the site, and this will be lost. The proposals for not provide for any on-site vehicular parking.

• 6.9.2 Appendix 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan (2016) allows for the standards to be relaxed where development would secure the re-use of a Registered Building, and/or is within a reasonable distance of an existing bus route and it can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking would not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the vicinity. For housing proposals, the requirement may be reduced having regard to the location of the development relative to public transport, employment and public amenities.
• 6.9.3 The applicant has noted that the peak hours for traffic on both street is 7:30 - 09:00 and 16:30 - 18:00, primarily traffic entering/leaving the car parks. The sites are located within the centre of Douglas, with good access to employment, services and the public transport network. There are a number of other public and private car parks within the area which

• could potentially be used by both residents of the apartments and customers/staff of the café/bar/restaurants.
• 6.9.4 The proposals could incorporate parking but given the limited space this would result in the loss of the whole ground floor for other uses, which would impact on the conservation area. Main vehicular access for construction would be via Queen Street, with scaffolding required on both Queen Street and North Quay. Construction related deliveries can be timed to minimise impacts, and this will be controlled seperately (see DOI Highways comment).
• 6.9.5 It is noted that DOI Highways do not object subject to a condition requiring details. As the cycle storage is to be within the building it is not considered that further details are required, however a condition could be imposed to ensure that the cycle storage is provided and retained.

6.10 Flooding (GP2.l, EP10, EP13)

• 6.10.1 In relation to flooding, the applicants make the following points.

• o The site is identified as being at a high risk of tidal flooding.
• o The existing ground floor level at No.22-23 is 4.89m and would need to be raised to

• 5.47m to mitigate flooding (0.59m increase). The existing ground floor level within Newsons (which the ground floor of the new development at No.25-26 would link into) is 4.85m and would need to be raised to 5.47m to mitigate flooding (0.62m increase).

• The retention of the North Quay portion of No.22-23, the retention of No.27-28 and the linking in of the replacement for No.25-26 dictates internal flood levels to some extent. o Other measures are proposed, namely the use of a demountable flood barrier protection system, use of water-resistant finishes to the floor and lower section of the ground floor walls (so they are robust and can be cleaned after an even), electrical sockets raised at least 600mm (but no more than 1200mm) from ground level and storage of goods and stock off the floor. It is noted that the preparation and maintenance of a comprehensive business flood risk plan could be undertaken, coupled to the use of IOM Government Flood-line service (for warnings). Connections to main foul and surface water sewers will be fitted with nonreturn valves to prevent backing up of water in the event of flooding within the local area.

6.11 Protected Species (GP2.d, EP4)

• 6.11.1 The comments from MNH and DEFA Ecology are noted in relation to bat surveys.

• 6.11.2 The complete demolition of a building is not development unless it is connected to another building which is not also to be demolished. The part-demolition of Nos.22-23 and the demolition of Nos. 25-26 therefore requires planning approval. In addition, if a building is within a Conservation Area (as here) it is protected from demolition as if it were registered, hence Registered Buildings approval is also required for the demolition.
• 6.11.3 The installation of prior-to conditions relating to the demolition of buildings can be problematic in terms of enforcement where specific approval is not required for the demolition, however in this case it is considered that such conditions could be effective (both in terms of bat protection and recording historic features) and as such the relevant surveys etc. need not be provided prior to determining the applications. It is also considered that such conditions should be applied to each consent that is required to allow demolition works (i.e. both the full and the Registered Building approvals).

6.12 Archaeology (EP40 and 41)

6.12.1 Given the nature of the site and the lack of concerns raised by MNH, it is not considered that further work or conditions are required.

6.13 Fire Safety (CP10, CP11), Water Usage (IP5) and energy efficiency (GP2.n, EP5)

• 6.13.1 The proposed works would also require Building Regulations approval and so are likely to be an improvement on the current situation.

6.14 Provision of Services (GP2.j)

6.14.1 Given the location, nature of the existing and nature of the proposed there are no concerns.

6.15 Community Safety (GP2.m)

• 6.15.1 Pedestrian access to the developments (including apartments) is provided via North Quay, therefore the previous concern in relation to access only being via Queen Street is considered to have been satisfactorily addressed.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION & CONDITIONS

7.1 Whilst the applications are to some extent interlinked, they are submitted as six separate applications and so it is necessary to consider:

• o what development would be approved by each application;
• o what would therefore amount to the commencement of each approval;
• o what would be required prior to the commencement of each approval; and
• o which elements need to be controlled to prevent them happening separately (and how and at what stage that control should be).

7.2 It is noted that conditions should only be imposed if necessary (i.e. in order to make a development acceptable that otherwise would be unacceptable). - 7.3 Because some of the proposed developments are intended as enabling works, it is necessary to consider how they should be linked (and the risk of some of them taking place without the works to the Registered Building taking place). If an application is, on its own unacceptable but is made acceptable on the grounds that it enables works to a Registered Building, then mechanisms (conditions and/or Section 13 agreement) should be in place to link the proposals. - 7.4 It is considered that:

• o the proposal in relation to Nos.22-23 is acceptable on its own, and so does not need to be tied to the works to the other buildings;
• o the proposal in relation to Nos.27-28 is potentially acceptable on its own, and so does not need to be tied to the works to the other buildings; but
• o that the proposal in relation to Nos.25-26 is only acceptable in the grounds that it will enable the works proposed for Nos.27-28 to take place.

7.5 The bar/restaurant on the ground floor would use the kitchen located in No.25-26 and so is unlikely to be developed in isolation. However, the apartments within Nos.25-26 could theoretically be constructed and used independently (i.e. without the works to Nos.27-28 taking place). Furthermore, there the development at Nos.25-26 does not rely on the development of the restaurant seating on the 1st floor or business use on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Nos.27-28. A condition is therefore proposed which prevents the apartments to be built at Nos.25-26 being occupied until such time as the development of Nos.27-28 is fully completed. Use of S.13 agreement is encouraged by GP4, however is not considered necessary given the above.

- 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 In relation to planning applications, 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 In relation to Registered Building applications, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application;
• o Manx National Heritage, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.3 The decision maker must determine, having regard to the Operational Policy:

• 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 the order/regulations who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.4 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.

8.5 It is therefore recommended that Manx Utilities do not receive IPS in relation to

• 18/01333/B and Manx National Heritage do not receive IPS in relation to 18/01329/B 18/01331/B, 18/01333/B on all cases because they have not identified land that they own/occupy which would be impacted on by the development (Policy 2.0 part A).

8.6 The comments from the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society are noted and welcomed. Their comments do not relate to land which they own/occupy and so it is not recommended that they receive Interested Person Status. - 8.7 It is noted that both the owners and occupiers of No. 24 (physically attached to two of the sites) has raised a number of points. Their submissions meet the tests set out in parts A and B of the Operational Policy (identify land within 20 metres). As set out previously, it is considered that some of the points raised are not material planning concerns. In relation to the three Registered Building applications it is not considered that the points raise relate to issues set out in Environment Policies 30-35 (include) and 30 of the Strategic Plan (2016) and so do not meet the test in part D of the Operational Policy. It is therefore not recommended that they receive IPS in relation to these applications. (18/01330/CON, 18/01332/CON and

- 18/01334/CON).

8.8 In relation to the three full applications it is considered that the only relevant material issue raised is traffic impacts (although it is noted that construction traffic will to some extent be controlled under other legislation). It is therefore necessary to consider, "whether a representation sets out material planning issues which are reasonably relevant to the nature, scale and location of the proposed development, but also whether it sets out such issues which could reasonably result in an impact on land which is owned/occupied by the person, group or organisation making a representation" (paragraph 4.3.1 of the Operational Policy). On balance it is not considered that the points raised meet this test and so do not meet part D of the operational policy. It is therefore not recommended that they receive IPS in relation to these applications (18/01329/B, 18/01331/B, 18/01333/GB).

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: 04.03.2019

Signed : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report & amended condition reason was required YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 04.03.2019 Application No. : 18/01329/B Applicant : Mr Dennis Rodgers Proposal : Demolition of part of existing building to rear, conversion of

remaining building, erection of new build element to rear of site, all to form cafe/bar/restaurant at ground and basement levels and 6 apartments on floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01330/CON)

Site Address : 22-23 North Quay Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4LE

Head of Development Management :

Mr S Butler

Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Case Officer provided an update in relation to a consultation response from Douglas Borough Council. In light of this the recommendation was amended and the wording of condition 3 amended to read, "The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until bicycle and bin stores have been provided in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department and the stores shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that these facilities are provided".

The amended recommendation was accepted.

The committee did not accept the recommendation in relation to IPS for this application, and granted to IPS to the owners and occupiers of No. 24 on the grounds of potential increased traffic.

Conditions of Approval

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

• Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C 2. No customers shall remain within the café/bar/restaurant hereby approved shall outside the hours of 08:00 and 23:00 (Monday to Saturday) and 09:00 - 15:00 (Sundays). Reason: In the interests of local amenity.
• C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until bicycle and bin stores have been provided in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department and the stores shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that these facilities are provided.
• C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Flood Mitigation Measures as set out in paragraphs 6.3.1 - 6.3.4 of the Design Statement (date stamped as having been received 21.12.18) are in-place and they shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that flood mitigation and resilience measures are implemented.
• C 5. Prior to any works taking place, including internal works to any of the existing buildings on site, bat surveys shall be undertaken by an agreed expert to establish the presence or absence of bats in the internal roof space. Details of the proposed survey, expert, appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department and shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall contain amongst other things:

• o the results of a bat survey which has been undertaken by licensed bat workers;
• o suitable protection and/or mitigation measures for any bats identified by the survey;
• o measures to ensure that a licensed bat worker is onsite during any works relating to the removal or alteration of roof, chimneys and walls in order to check for bats which may not have been picked up during the survey; and
• o measures to be undertaken in the event that a bat is found by the bat-worker on site.

Should bats be found, the appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on protected species in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

• C 6. Before the commencement of works, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Department showing the areas of masonry to be demolished and setting out the method of ensuring the safety and stability of the building fabric identified to be retained throughout the phases of demolition and reconstruction. Such details to include structural engineering drawings and/or a method statement. The work shall be carried out fully in accordance with the method statement approved.

Reason: In order to ensure that the character and appearance of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest is retained in accordance with Policies, EP35 and EP39 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of The Isle Of Man.

• C 7. No development shall commence until a scope for a 'building recording survey' to Level 2 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The subsequent survey work shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scope and fully implemented and a

copy made available to the Department prior to development commencing. For the avoidance of doubt the recording shall be undertaken in accordance with Historic England's Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice (2016).

Reason: In order to ensure that the character and appearance of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest is retained in accordance with Policies, EP35 and EP39 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of The Isle Of Man.

Plans/Drawings/Information

This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information (all date stamped as having been received 21.12.18):

• o Drawing Number P-10-01 entitled, 'Existing Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections; Site Plan & Location Plan'
• o Drawing Number P-10-02 entitled, 'Proposed Floor Plans & Site Plan'
• o Drawing Number P-12-01 entitled, 'Proposed Elevations and Cross Sections'
• o Drawing Number P-12-02 entitled, Existing Street 'Elevations'
• o Drawing Number P-12-03 entitled, 'Proposed Street Elevations'
• o Document entitled, "Design Statement for Demolition of Rear Portion and Outbuildings
• of Existing Mixed Use Retail and Residential Property and Erection of Replacement Building incorporating Café/Restaurant at Basement & Ground Floor Level & 6 No. Apartments to First Floor & Above at No.22-23 North Quay, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM4 1HT for Mr. Dennis Rogers" and produced by Kay Associated Limited. 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.