Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00135/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00135/B Applicant : Kirindolam 3 Ltd Proposal : Planning approval for demolition of all existing buildings on site and replacement with a building accommodating shop (Class 1.1) or food and drink floorspace (Class 1.3) on the ground floor with seven apartments (Class 3.4) and associated bin and cycle storage Site Address : 6 And 8 Bridge Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AG
Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2024 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. No works of demolition shall begin before evidence has been submitted to the Department of a binding contract for the full implementation of the comprehensive scheme of development of the site in accordance with all the necessary permissions and consents.
Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory redevelopment of the application site prior to the existing building loss in accordance with Environment Policy 30 of Strategic Plan 2016 and that an unsightly gap or derelict site does not detract from the character and appearance of the area.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of works above damp proof course level, full details of external materials and finishes shall be submitted to the Department for approval in writing. The development shall thereafter be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance of the development.
C 4. The secure cycle storage facilities and bin storage shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved drawings prior to the occupation of the development.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00135/B Page 2 of 14
Reason: To ensure the development is served by sufficient cycle storage provision and refuse storage facilities.
C 5. The following flood risk mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the approved development:
Development shall include the use of high performance non-permeable materials below damp proof course level and at ground floor level.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding with respect to the approved development in accordance with Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of works above damp proof course level, a bat and bird mitigation plan shall be provided to the Department and approved in writing. The plan should contain details, including the type, location (including height) and number of bricks and boxes.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate ecological mitigation are incorporated into the approved scheme.
C 7. No permanent external lighting shall be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to the Department approved in writing. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan. Lighting should be avoided wherever possible as a priority.
Reason: To avoid and mitigate ecological impacts.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to amount to a high quality design which would ensure that the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area is successfully preserved, whilst providing a good standard of amenity for future occupants without detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties.
The proposals would further not result in a detrimental impact upon the safety and convenience of the local highway network, whilst further being deemed acceptable from a flood risk perspective. The development is therefore deemed to comply with Strategic Policies 1,2,4,5,10,11, Spatial Policy 1, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4,5,10,22,35,42,43, Housing Policies 1-4, Transport Policies 1,4,7 and Infrastructure Policies 1,5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, relevant policies of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and documents referenced;
23-131-01 RevB - proposed plans and elevations Received 14.11.24
Protected Species and Emergence Survey Received 28.10.24
23-131-02 Rev A - streetscene elevations plan
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00135/B Page 3 of 14
23-131-03 Rev A - location plan 23-131-04 Rev A - existing site plan 23-131-05 Rev A - proposed site plan Received 07.02.24 __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to Nos. 6 and 8 Bridge Road, which comprise two conjoined buildings that front onto Bridge Road and overlook Douglas Inner Harbour to the east. No. 8 is semi-detached with a single vehicle width lane to the south that has double yellow lines along its length, whilst no. 6 is a mid-terrace building with the Railway Hotel attached to the north. The properties each have a small rear yard area with a currently open area to the rear of np. 8 following the demolition of a former warehouse building. There is a further warehouse to the rear of no. 6
1.2 The two properties are unique to each other from a design standpoint, with no. 6 comprising a three storey Victorian building with its front elevation featuring mouldings, string courses and cornice at first floor ground level and eaves level with a traditional chimney at each end and round headed windows on the ground floor. The windows are sliding sash although some are presently boarded up. The front door is centrally positioned and it too has a round headed with similar fanlight above the door. This building includes a basement.
1.3 No. 8 by contrast is more modern in appearance including a double Roman heavy mansard roof, brick plinth above which is mock roughcast render work with horizontally proportioned plastic framed casement and fixed windows including three within the mansard level. Whilst this has three floors of accommodation, one is contained within the roof, leading to the building sitting lower than no 6 which in turn is slightly lower than the Railway Hotel.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of all existing buildings on site and their replacement by two new buildings which will provide Class 1 (shops) and/or Class 1.3 (consumption of food and drink on the premises) at ground floor level with seven apartments above (Class 3.4).
2.2 The new buildings have been designed to replicate what currently exists at number 6 and a continuation of this style in the new building in place of number 8. The opportunity to expand the available floorspace for the commercial units has been taken by the addition of a single storey of flat roof at the rear, occupying the remainder of the site but leaving the rear private lane free for access. Space for the storage of the refuse bins is provided at the rear with access from the rear lane for collection. The development would not be accompanied by any on-site parking provision.
2.3 The application is supported by a structural survey which the submitted planning statement providing the following summary of its findings:
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00135/B Page 4 of 14
"The existing building at number 6 is in poor condition as is the warehouse building to the rear. There was a further warehouse between this and the lane - to the rear of number 8 which was demolished in 2022 due to its condition.
Structural surveys were undertaken of all three buildings in 2023 and are attached to this application. The warehouse, which is actually two conjoined buildings, showed signs of pronounced distortion in the roof of the three storey element, there was spalling evident on the north facing wall, a bow at first floor level in the elevation facing the lane and irregularities in the stone and brick face of the two storey wall facing the rear of number 6. Within the building steel beams displayed severe corrosion, timber beams showed decay and softening, support to the first floor joists did not appear robust. On the first and second floors the floor finishes exhibited pronounced sagging and did not feel secure underfoot with pronounced cracking to the walls with spalling finishes.
The conclusion of the report was that the building is in a very dilapidated condition and is not safe for occupation and in their view, the repairs would be uneconomic to undertake. It recommends demolition of the structure.
The survey of number 6 was undertaken in July 2023 and revealed that the render face of the front wall to each side of the front entrance exhibited a lean of 100mm over a height of 3.6m above ground level with pronounced vertical cracking at the ground and first floor window reveals with cracking to the first floor string to the front wall.
The timber lintel to the front wall exhibited decay and partial collapse. The timber lintel to the rear wall had collapsed. Internally the suspended timber floor finishes exhibited sagging and sloping and the front wall lintel was exposed with the wall and ceiling finishes exhibiting some spalling.
The conclusion was that the building is in a dangerous condition and whilst not in imminent danger of collapse onto public areas, the extent of deterioration and lean to the front wall will propagate further adverse movement, resulting in endangerment to the public. Structural measures to prevent further adverse movement of the front wall will be difficult and hazardous to implement. The condition of the front wall and internal structure represents a significant health and safety risk and whilst external shoring could be theoretically introduced to restrain the front wall, such an arrangement impacts the footway and would be unlikely to be visually acceptable. If the front wall were restrained, the decayed timber lintels would need to be replaced, effectively requiring the rebuilding of the entire front wall. Rebuilding the front wall is feasible whilst shorting the remainder of the building but the poor condition of the remainder of the building would not structurally justify retention.
Their recommendation was to demolish the building with support and waterproofing provided to the adjoining buildings and infilling of the basement taking account of surcharging party walls. Prior to this, the movement of the front wall should be monitored pending demolition and in the event of further significant movement, an exclusion zone should be introduced to safeguard passers-by.
The survey of number 8 was undertaken in July, 2023 and it was observed that there was vertical open joints and stepped and vertical cracking on the front elevation, sloping cills, distorted render and a lean in the rear wall with a pronounced slope inside toward Lake Road. The conclusion here was that the building exhibits significant adverse structural movement which may have arisen during the construction of Quay West apartments around 2011. It recommended the inspection of the internal cavities to confirm the effectiveness of the wall ties and remediate if necessary and monitor movement of the external walls with inspection in 2 years' time with further suitable remedial work if then required."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00135/B Page 5 of 14
3.1 The site is subject to a fairly extensive planning history, which includes the refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide a 12 unit apartment block and a ground floor retail unit in 2012 (PA 11/00421/B). An appeal against this decision was ultimately withdrawn. Likewise, an earlier Registered Building Consent application to demolish the existing buildings was also refused in 2012 (PA 11/00422/CON) with the subsequent appeal against the decision also withdrawn.
3.2 Prior to this, permission was refused in 2009 (PA 09/0909/F) to demolish the existing outbuildings at the rear of the principal building.
3.2 Further applications submitted and ultimately granted relate to the conversion of residential units to officer use (PA 07/02321/B) and conversion of the ground and first floor to a restaurant and wine bar (PA 07/2320/B). Likewise, additional applications in relation to replacement fenestration and modest alterations have been granted permission in the past.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Area Plan for the East (2020) 4.1.1 In accordance with the Douglas Central map within the Area Plan for the East, the site falls within the 'Mixed Use Area 7 - The Quayside'. The site falls within the Douglas North Quay Conservation Area, and an area of high flood risk (river and tidal).
4.1.2 The Mixed Use Area 7 - The Quayside is referred to in the Written Statement as follows:
"The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern side which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side, industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. The Quays are also strategic freight corridors and maintaining access for commercial vehicles, including HGV's, must be considered in any proposed development. Due to the former industrial uses of South Quay, significant site preparation including decontamination may be required."
The site is further subject to Mixed Use Proposal 7, which notes the following:
"There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay.
There will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay, including the potential re-positioning of the highway of South Quay between Old Castletown Road and Fort Anne Road, for new uses in the following categories: o Tourism o Offices o Food and Drink o Leisure o Reception and function venues o Business hubs/share-service offices o Residential uses at first floor level and above."
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Development focussed in existing towns and villages 4 Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution 5 Design and visual impact
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00135/B Page 6 of 14
10 Sustainable transport 11 Housing needs
Spatial Policy 1 Development within the Douglas urban area
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 4 Protection of species and habitats 5 Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 10 Development and flood risk 22 Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution 35 Development in Conservation Areas 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality 43 Development and regeneration of run-down urban areas
Housing Policy 1 Housing needs 2 Adequate supply of housing through Area Plans 3 Provision of 2,440 homes in East area during 2011-2026 plan period 4 New Housing to defined existing towns
Transport Policy 1 Proximity to existing public transportation services 4 Highway Safety 7 Parking Provisions
Infrastructure Policy 1 Development to take place in areas which will be connected to the IRIS drainage system 5 Water conservation and management
Energy Policy 5 Residential development of 5 or more dwellings to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment
Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 10 Proper access for firefighting appliances 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
5.0 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.2 Our Island Plan (2022) Essentially sets out the overall ambition and vision for the Island from 2021 - 2026 with core strategic objectives to offer a 'secure', 'vibrant' and 'sustainable' Island. One broad aspect that is noted as a fundamental issue is; "Tackle the housing crisis by ensuring everyone has a suitable and affordable place to call home and our housing stock meets the needs of our population now and into the future". (page 3)
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00135/B Page 7 of 14
5.3 Climate Change Act 2021 completed its passage through Tynwald in April 2021 and subsequently received Royal Assent in December 2021. The Act requires a statutory five-year Climate Change Plan to be in operation at all times, ensuring a clear direction for the Island to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
5.4 The Climate Change Action Plan 2022-2027 was subsequently produced and published in July 2022 and outlines the actions Government must take to cut emissions over the next five years, so the Island remains on track to be net zero by 2050. The plan assigns a percentage emission reduction target to six policy areas, including energy, transport and agriculture that must be met. Some of the major actions include: o The provision of carbon neutral electricity supply by 2030 o Bringing forward building regulations to ensure 97% energy efficiency in new buildings o Seeking to bring forward a ban on fossil fuel heating systems in new builds to 2024 o The installation of 20MW of local renewables by 2026 o Future introduction of further support for homeowners and tenants to aid the transition o The setting of a new interim emissions target of 35% by 2030.
5.5 Isle of Man Economic Strategy 2022 Approved by Tynwald in November 2022, the Economic Strategy outlines a 10-15 year strategy which seeks to, "...build a strong and diverse economy, which is sustainable, ambitious and built on firm foundations to provide economic success, rewarding career opportunities and prosperity which positively impacts all residents on the Isle of Man".
To achieve this vision, the strategy aims to make the Island a more attractive and prosperous place to live and work which it states will sustain and grow productive businesses and services. The plan outlines a £1bn long term public and private investment programme to secure 5,000 new jobs and a £10bn economy with infrastructure that can support 100,000 Island residents over the next fifteen years to 2037.
In terms of infrastructure and services, the plan seeks to actively invest in key services and infrastructure that attract and retain economically active people supported by a range of targeted incentives and disincentives to sustain targeted growth. The strategy also suggests example initiatives which, amongst other things includes the provision of suitable and affordable housing; housing especially for 20-40-year-olds; further support for the Island's education and skills offering; and affordable accessible childcare. The Plan recognises the importance of prioritising housing delivery in order to provide the housing stock to support the growth of the Island's population, employment and economic growth. The Plan states that without this, the economic potential of the Island will be held back and other policy measures will be less effective. The strategy also seeks to substantially decarbonise the service part of the economy by 2030, supporting an overall reduction of 35% in the Islands Greenhouse Gas emissions.
5.6 Built Environment Reform Programme (2022) BERP is a two year programme of work set out to develop commitments in the Island Plan to build great communities. The document also promotes brown field sites for regeneration and ways to stimulate development in the widest terms. (Strategic Objective 4)
5.7 Isle of Man Objective Assessment of Housing Need 2024 (May 2024) This document has been produced to assist in the formation of the Island's strategic planning policy and to outline projected future housing need on the Island. The document has not yet been through Tynwald but nevertheless remains a useful document, and is therefore afforded a degree of weight in the determination of planning applications.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00135/B Page 8 of 14
6.1 Douglas City Council - The above planning applications were given careful consideration by the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 21/03/24 when it was resolved to support both applications subject to the following:
The Council would also kindly ask that the applicant gives consideration to the disabled access arrangements for the proposed food/drink space on the ground floor level of the development. (21.03.24)
6.2 Highway Services - Highway Services HDC have revised the updated information for application 24/00135/B dated 15 Nov 2024 online and it appears that the Applicant has addressed the HDC comments dated 25 Feb 2024 online.
Accordingly, HDC now do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to details of secure cycle storage facilities, and the proposed bin storage, shown on the approved plans to the implemented before first occupation. (18.11.24)
6.3 Highways Drainage - No response received at the time of writing.
6.4 Manx Utilities Authority - No response received at the time of writing.
6.5 Flood Risk Management - FRM have consulted with the Architect for this application and are happy with the mitigation measures in the correspondence dated 19th February 2024. If the PA is successful please condition the mitigation measures in the letter dated 19th February 2024. (28.06.24)
6.6 Registered Buildings Officer - This site forms the boundary of the Douglas (North Quay) Conservation Area, and as such the tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act should be applied to any application(s). This requires that "special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area". The policy tests within the strategic plan and PPS 1/01 also apply. The buildings currently occupying the site vary in age. Number 6 Bridge Road and the warehouses at the rear are likely to date from the late 1800s, while number 8 Bridge Road is believed to date from circa 1970. The structural report submitted as part of this application for number 6 Bridge Road lists various issues, the most obvious of which is the significant bow in the front (easterly) wall of the property. As buildings likely to date from the late Victorian era, number 6 Bridge Road and the warehouses to the rear are judged to make a positive contribution to the history and character of the conservation area. This contribution is considered to be limited, however, given the current condition of the buildings and the amount of historic fabric that has been lost. Number 8 Bridge Road is not historic, and its design is such that it is not judged to make any positive contribution to the character of the conservation area.
Although the loss of any historic buildings will cause a degree of harm to the significance of the conservation area, in this instance the buildings in question are not judged to be examples of the area's earliest buildings (they do not appear on the 1860s map) or to be the most representative example of their respective types, and their loss is therefore judged to cause a 'less than substantial' level of harm. Given the level of deterioration in the fabric of number 6, it
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00135/B Page 9 of 14
is likely that any repair would result in the replacement of significant amounts of historic fabric. With this in mind, it is judged that the total loss of the building and its replacement with a building in a form intended to match the current building would result in only limited harm to the character of the conservation area. The replacement of number 8 with a building that's form, massing and style would seek to replicate number 6 as it currently exists has the potential to enhance the appearance of the conservation area. This potential enhancement, although mild, would to some degree offset the harm caused by the loss of the historic buildings on the site.
For the reasons outlined above, on balance I would judge the application to preserve the special character of the conservation area as the loss of historic fabric would be offset by the form and appearance of the proposed replacement buildings. (28.06.24)
6.7 Manx National Heritage - No response received at the time of writing.
6.8 DEFA Biodiversity - General Stance o No objection subject to condition
Detailed comments o The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are content with Ecology Vannin's (EV) Protected Species Survey (Birds and Bats) & Emergence Survey Report dated October 2024. o EV found multiple potential bat roost features, though roosting bats were not confirmed and due to the time of year a further emergence survey was not possible. Due to the applicants concern over the structural stability, we are content in this instance to not request any further emergence surveys. However, precautionary working methods, as detailed in S6.1 of EV's survey report, including winter demolition and checks for bats, must be followed to ensure that bats are not harmed by the works and an offence is not committed under the Wildlife Act 1990. EV also recommended that at least 3 bat bricks (2 for crevice dwelling species and 1 for cavity dwelling species) should be installed in order to mitigate the loss of multiple potential roost spaces and a condition for this is requested below. EV also recommended that external lighting plans be provided. o EV found substantial evidence of nesting birds within the buildings. However, this has largely been attributed to feral pigeons, for which mitigation, in the form of replacement nesting space is not required. House sparrows were also recorded as likely nesters. However, due to the time of year in which EV undertook their inspection of the building, it is highly likely that other nesting signs were missed. Due to the multiple potential nest sites to be lost, EV recommended that at least 3 universal swift nest bricks and a jackdaw box be installed as mitigation, and a condition for this is requested below. Demolition must also take place outside of the bird nesting season. The applicant should note that unlike many other species of birds, feral pigeon will nest-year round and though measures have been taken to exclude them from nesting in the buildings, their presence cannot be ruled out and so careful and thorough checks for nesting birds must be undertaken prior to demolition taking place. o The applicant should be aware that the buildings to be demolished are only approx. 60m away from Douglas Bay Marine Nature Reserve and 60m away from the Douglas River and The Nunnery and Lower Douglas River Wildlife Site (the locations of these can be seen on the Island Environment Map at www.gov.im/maps), as such, measures must be put in place to ensure that demolition and construction activities do not result in pollution of the river, sea and Marine Nature Reserve, in particular from surface water runoff during construction, in this area at risk of flooding. This should include measures such as access to spill kits, use of biodegradable oil, bunding, waste disposal procedures, locations of washing out and refuelling areas etc, and what to do if a pollution incident occurs.
Potential Conditions o The Ecosystem Policy Team recommend that conditions are secured for:
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00135/B Page 10 of 14
o No works to commence unless a bat and bird mitigation plan has been provided to Planning and approved in writing. The plan should contain details, including the type, location (including height) and number of bricks and boxes. o No permanent external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan. Lighting should be avoided wherever possible as a priority. Reason - To avoid and mitigate ecological impacts.
Additional Information The applicants must ensure that the buildings are demolished in full accordance with the avoidance measures for bats and birds contained in S6.1 of Ecology Vannin's Protected Species Report. We would add to these recommendations that thorough checks for bats and birds must be made throughout the buildings prior to and during demolition. (21.11.24)
6.9 DEFA Fisheries - No response received at the time of writing.
6.10 Environment Health - No response received at the time of writing.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:
(STP1,2,11, SP1, H1-4)
(GP2,EP22)
(EP4,5)
(STP10, TP1,4,7)
(EP10, IP1,5)
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 The application site falls within the urban area of Douglas which is noted to remain the main employment and services centre for the Island in accordance with Spatial Policy 1, whilst further being the main focus for new residential development. The site is also located within The Quayside Mixed Use Area as noted in Map 5 - Douglas Central, in the Area Plan for the East (APE), where there is a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay, with support given for a range of uses, including residential, on South Quay.
7.2.2 The site is located on the western side of the Quay and is therefore neither within North or South Quay per say, however the site has historically housed a mix of uses over time including residential, office and food and drink uses. Noting the site's location within Central Douglas where there is a general presumption in favour of a wider range of uses, including residential, the proposed redevelopment of the site to provide a residential led scheme with retail and/or food and drink uses at ground floor level is considered to be appropriate and a sustainable re-use of the site.
7.3 CHARACTER, DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 7.3.1 The proposals seek a comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a total of 7 no. apartments (2 x 1-bed and 5 x 2-bed) arranged across the first and second floors, with 2 no. commercial units at ground floor. From a visual standpoint, the development would effectively replication the design, scale and vernacular of the existing building present at No. 6 Bridge Street following demolition, which would then be replicated at No. 8 following demolition of the more modern building currently in situ.
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00135/B Page 11 of 14
7.3.2 The structural survey submitted notes that the existing building at No. 6 is in a fairly poor condition and, whilst still displaying elements of grandeur and historic detailing, is presently in a deteriorated state and therefore goes some way to partially detract from the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene.
7.3.3 The registered buildings officer has assessed the proposals in the context of their impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and notes that the loss of the existing historic building at No. 6, whilst in a poor condition, would result in a degree of harm to the Conservation Area. However, noting that the proposals would effectively seek to replicate the design, scale and form of the existing building, whilst further resulting in the loss and replacement of the 1970s building at No. 8 which is not in keeping with the locality, the officer has concluded that the proposals would, on balance, successfully preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
7.3.4 Moreover, any remedial works required to bring the current building at No. 6 up to a high standard in terms of practical living accommodation and ensuring structural stability would not doubt result in the loss of the majority of any meaningful historic fabric which may be present within the building. Moreover, when judged against the merits of the entirety of the scheme and loss of the more modern building at No. 8, it is not considered that a requirement to retain and restore the existing building at No. 6 would be overly reasonable on balance. Therefore, the loss of this building as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the wider site as proposed is judged to be acceptable and in compliance with Environment Policy 35.
7.3.5 In summary, the proposals will allow for an efficient reuse of a brownfield site that would, on balance, result in a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider Conservation Area relative to the current situation. The loss of the modern 1970s building at No. 8 is particularly welcomed due to its design and form deemed incongruous to the general vernacular of the wider locality, and indeed its replacement which a high quality pastiche of the historic building at No. 6 would represent an appropriate design solution. The development is therefore deemed to be acceptable from a design and visual impact perspective, in compliance with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 35, 42 and 43 of the Strategic Plan.
7.4 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY 7.4.1 The key consideration in this instance would be the impact of the proposed development upon the amenities of existing apartments in the neighbouring flatted development of Quay West 1 to the immediate south, particularly with respect to outlook, privacy and loss of light/overshadowing. That being said, it is recognised that the proposed level of built development, particularly in terms of scale and massing, is largely comparable to the existing level of built development on site which already include a series of lawful residential units.
7.4.2 Furthermore, the quantum of fenestration proposed in the southern elevation of the development would be reduced relative to the existing situation vis-à-vis No. 8, with only 2 windows proposed above ground floor level to serving the living room areas of the intended apartments. On the basis that the proposed development would result in a modest improvement to the living conditions of adjacent occupants within Quay West 1, with such an impact likely to be limited to a modest degree of mutual overlooking in any case, it is not considered that the proposals would give rise to a harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity.
7.4.3 Turning to the living conditions of future occupants, it is noted that all apartments would exceed the minimal adopted standards with respect to floorspace, whilst further benefitting from sufficient levels of natural light and ventilation. Moreover, all apartments would benefit from views to the east over the Quay, and in particular all of the lounge/kitchen areas would benefit from such a view.
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00135/B Page 12 of 14
7.4.4 Whilst it is recognised that none of the apartments would be afforded any private amenity space, this would again be comparable to the existing situation. From a design perspective, it is further recognised that the delivery of private amenity space for each apartment would detract from the vernacular and architectural detailing of the proposed development which comprises a pastiche of the existing building at No. 6. The introduction of balconies, for example, would detract from this design approach. Likewise, the introduction of balconies at the rear would be afforded a very poor outlook and would therefore also not be a desirable design approach.
7.4.5 In any case, the site is located in a highly sustainable location and within acceptable walking distances to public outdoor amenity areas, and in particularly the sunken gardens on the Promenade and the Douglas Bay beach itself. On this basis therefore, it is considered that the absence of private amenity space for each of the apartments is appropriate in this instance. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable from a residential amenity perspective, whilst further providing sufficient levels of amenity and living standards for future residents, in compliance with General Policy 2 (g) and (h).
7.5 ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY 7.5.1 No concerns have been raised by the Ecosystems Policy Officer following the subsequent submission of a Protected Species Survey and Emergence Survey Report. Whilst no further emergent surveys are deemed to be necessary in this instance, it has been recommended that a bird and bat mitigation plan be provided prior to the commencement of any demolition works, including details of the installation of bat/bird bricks and boxes.
7.6 HIGHWAYS IMPACTS AND PARKING 7.6.1 No objections have been raised by Highways following the submission of additional and updated information providing clarity over the footprint of the proposed building, the retention of the existing footway area and details of the proposed cycle storage layout. Given the highly sustainable and accessible location of the site within the centre of Douglas, the absence of any on-site parking provision in this instance is considered to be acceptable, particularly when noting that the site does not benefit from any on-site provision at present.
7.7 DRAINAGE AND FLOODING 7.7.1 The site falls within an area which is identified as a High Risk Flood Zone (River and Tidal) on the DoI flood map. The submission notes that the development as proposed has been designed so as not to result in an unacceptable risk from flooding either on or off-site, with the application having been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Hydraulic Modelling Report.
7.7.2 The submitted FRA determines that all residential accommodation will be flood free during all simulated events, and that the proposed development has no off-site impact up to and including the 1% AEP plus 30% CC fluvial event and 0.5% (year 2123) tidal event. Flood risk is therefore limited to the ground floor car park, bin stores and entrance lobbies. The FRA has identified a number of flood resilience measures which should be implemented in order to minimise risk to the car park.
7.7.3 In particular, it is proposed that all rainwater falling onto the podium and roof structures will be collected within the stormwater drainage system and discharged directly into the River Douglas. Storage may be required for periods of high tide, and this is considered within the FRA. The ground floor car park will be laid to falls and drained through gullies within the car park slab. Gullies will be connected into a stormwater manhole and discharged into the combined sewer running within Lake Road. Foul drainage will be collected within a separate foul drainage system which will be discharged into the combined sewer running within Lake Road.
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/00135/B Page 13 of 14
7.7.4 Following review of the scheme and the submitted FRA, the DoI Flood Risk Management Division have confirmed they are content with the application on the basis of flood risk. The following mitigation has been recommended within the submitted FRA and would be conditioned in the event planning permission is forthcoming:
Any drainage discharges or outlets in the flood wall in the southern extent of the site should be fitted with non-return valves.
7.7.5 On the basis of the above, the proposals are considered to be acceptable from a flood risk perspective insofar as future residents of the development would be sufficiently safeguarded in the event of an extreme flood event, with the development further not considered to result in an unacceptable level of off-site flood risk.
7.7.6 In terms of surface water drainage, this would be collected within the stormwater drainage system and discharged directly into the river. Manx Utilities Authority have raised no objections over the principle of the surface water drainage strategy but state that a condition should be attached to the decision notice stating that no surface water can be discharged into the public sewer. Foul water drainage is to be collected within a separate drainage system and discharged into the combined sewer running along Lake Road. No objections have been raised by MUA on this basis.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed development is considered to amount to a high quality design which would ensure that the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area is successfully preserved, whilst providing a good standard of amenity for future occupants without detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties.
8.2 The proposals would further not result in a detrimental impact upon the safety and convenience of the local highway network, whilst further being deemed acceptable from a flood risk perspective. The development is therefore deemed to comply with Strategic Policies 1,2,4,5,10,11, Spatial Policy 1, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4,5,10,22,35,42,43, Housing Policies 1-4, Transport Policies 1,4,7 and Infrastructure Policies 1,5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, relevant policies of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the planning application be approved for the reasons contained within this report, subject to the attachment of conditions listed on any forthcoming decision notice.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/00135/B Page 14 of 14
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 12.12.2024
Determining Officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal