194271

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  1  of  35

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 24/00298/B Applicant : Care Developments Limited Proposal : Demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and the creation of five new four bedroom dwellings with associated parking, amended access, amended drainage and landscaping. Site Address : Former Eastfield Mansion House Eastfield Douglas IM1 4AU

Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 27.03.2024 Site Visit : 27.03.2024 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.06.2024 __

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 development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 3. For the avoidance of doubt the solar panels hereby approved are required to be integrated solar panels (in-roof solar panels) installed so they run flush with the external roof plane rather than being installed on top of the roof tiles/slates.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and the individual property and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

C 4. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  2  of  35

approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the kennel extension, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. The hard landscaping should include details of the surface finish of the driveway and footpaths as well as any fencing/walls to all boundaries of the dwellings. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and for biodiversity net gain.

C 5. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved the parking and turning areas shall be completed and ready for use in accordance with the approved drawing P-101 REV B. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Further, two off road parking spaces shall be allocated to each dwelling and all retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 6. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved the visibility plays of 2.4m x 43m in both directions and as shown on approved drawing P-101 REV B shall be provided and shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 7. Prior to the occupation of either dwelling on Plot 1 or Plot 5 the bat and bird bricks as shown on drawing P-102 REV A shall be completed and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

C 8. Prior to the installation of each of the following features, there must be submitted to and approved by the Department samples or large-scale (1:20 or better) detailed drawings of the relevant feature or features to front elevations, including: a) String course; b) hood mouldings; c) Front door, to include window details above; d) Render details; e) Details below eves; and f) Details of features to top section of bay windows.

The development shall not be occupied until the above features have all been installed in accordance with the approved details and they shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

C 9. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved the front garden wall with decorative railings above and gate as shown on drawing P-103 REV A shall be completed and be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  3  of  35

C 10. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved all bike and bins storage as shown on drawing P-101 REV B shall be completed and ready for use and retained thereafter for that purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate bin and cycle provision.

C 11. All existing trees shall be retained, unless those shown on the approved drawings BTC2924-TIP REV A as being removed.

All trees on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage as a result of works on the site as shown on drawing BTC2924-TPP and approved documents Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated March 2024 and Tree Root Protection system GEOWEB to the satisfaction of the Department in accordance with British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations) for the duration of the works on site and the development is completed as shown on drawings BTC2924-TPP.

In the event that trees become damaged or otherwise defective during such period, the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. In the event that a tree dies or is wilfully removed without prior consent it shall be replaced as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with trees of such size, species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Department.

Reason: to ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. In overall balance, and taking all matters into consideration, including the fact that in its current form the building could be considered a visual detractor in the area, it is considered that the benefits just outweigh the harms that have been identified. This decision is very finely balanced as the proposal has a number of positive elements, namely the creation of five new residential dwellings on a brownfield site within Douglas, which is the most sustainable location on the IOM, which also makes good use of this land and being well designed which would sit well within street scenes and the Conservation Area. The negative element with the application is the demolition of Eastfield and the potential harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. However, on balance and for the reasons outlined within this report it is considered the proposal is acceptable and therefore it is recommend for an approval, albeit the loss of Eastfield is unfortunate.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received;

12.03.2024 EX01 REV A EX02 REV A Planning Statement Heritage Statement dated October 2022 Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated March 2024 BTC2924-TCP Rev: A BTC2924-TIP Rev: A BTC2924-TPP Tree Root Protection System GEOWEB Structural Report - Dated 19th January 2023 Design Statement dated March 2024

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  4  of  35

09.04.2024 Viability Assessment 16.04.2024

P101 REV B P102 REV A P103 REV A

30.05.2024 Heritage Statement dated May 2024 __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Emsdale, Hawarden Avenue, Douglas as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (2019). __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ACTING HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing property Eastfield Mansion House, Eastfield, Douglas, which is a detached traditional property, main two storeys in height albeit accommodation within the roof (dormers and gable end window in places) located on the north-western side of Eastfield and situated to the north west of Westbourne Drive. The site is located to the northwest of the Allotments which are opposite Brighton Terrace to the south. The site has vehicular access via its main entrance (eastern boundary) via Westmount or Eastfield or via a rear access from the rear lane which runs along the rear boundaries of Eastfield. 1.2 This site until the last few years was used as a residential care home and was formally a large detached dwelling. The submitted application indicates that the neighbouring end terrace Nr 14 Eastfield is within the same ownership as the applicants, but does not form part of this application. This property was also used as part of the care home and was in fact attached to the main Eastfield Mansion House via a linked extension. The latter has recently been demolished and therefore Eastfield Mansion House now a detached property as originally built. The property is shown on the published 1869 ordnance survey map with a footprint similar to what exists today. It is noted that a photograph taken in 1860 (imuseum - Manx National Heritage) appear to show the property with only the western front projecting two storey gable end and the now central part of the dwelling. It would seem by 1869 the eastern two storey front projecting gable of the property was then added afterwards. The differing roof slopes (hipped to western gable and gable ended to eastern end) would seem to suggest that the eastern part of the dwelling was a later addition a few years later. 1.3 The dwelling is sizeable in size and potentially one of the larger detached properties in the surround area. The property is made up of a two storey central section which is flanked by two front gable ends. The property is mainly made up of

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  5  of  35

painted render (except eastern gable elevation which is expose Manx stone) and a slate roof finish. The front elevation (south) and western gable elevation includes its original decorative hooded mounding’s above all windows. A render band between ground and first floor levels exists to the front elevation. A single storey uPVC conservatory fronts the central section of the property. To the rear a number of lean- to roof extensions both single and two storey in size. The original three substantial chimney stacks are still in place within the roof. 1.4 The front boundary of the site is made up of a number of hedgerows and landscaping, which also includes semi-mature and mature trees to it boundaries fronting onto Eastfield/Westmount (front boundary), its southern boundary shared with Nr 6 Westmount and south western corner of the site, which fronts onto a unmade access lane which runs along the entire western boundary of the site and along the rear boundaries of properties along Westbourne Drive to the west of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and the creation of five new four bedroom dwellings with associated parking, amended access, amended drainage and landscaping. 2.2 The works will involve the demolition of the Eastfield Mansion House and its replacement with a terrace of five three storey dwellings, which includes accommodation within roof space. 2.3 The proposed new dwellings would have a dining room, kitchen, lounge, entrance porch and WC on the ground floor, two bedrooms with ensuite at first floor and two bedrooms and a large bathroom on the third floor. Each dwelling would have a rear terraces/garden which also includes a 2.5m x 1.5m concrete bases for a cycle store/shed and also bin storage for each dwelling with an additionally communal bin storage area for “bin collection days” which is collected form the access lane to the wester of the site. Each property would have a small front garden area which would be enclosed by a front garden wall and railings above. Each dwelling would have solar panels and a air source heat pump. 2.4 Four (Plots 1, 2, 3 & 4) of the five dwellings are identical, which also include a rear single storey outlet; the fifth dwelling (Plot 5) which is set adjacent to No. 14 Eastfield to the east, would have its rear elevation recessed from the rear building line of the other dwellings and does not have a rear single storey outlet as the other four dwellings. The properties roof ridge would be set below the 2.5 Further proposed works would involve the following: a. Widening of existing access onto Eastfield/Westmount; b. Creation of 10 parking spaces (5 row of tandem parking) to existing front lawned area; c. Provision of turning head; d. Removal of a number of trees on site to facilitate the development, parking; e. Blocking of existing rear vehicular access with only pedestrian access only for Nr 5; f. New landscaping and tree planting throughout site; and g. Demolition of rear garage. 2.6 In support of the application the submission, the conclusion of the Planning Statement states; “6.1 Whilst there is a presumption against the loss of buildings of interest and importance within Conservation Areas, in this case, it is submitted that the existing building is in poor repair and retention and re-use of the existing building is neither economically nor structurally sensible. Further information has

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  6  of  35

been provided regarding the financial viability and the current state of the market for sites like this. 6.2 In any case, the practicality of retaining the existing building would result in significant parts of it being rebuilt and the majority of the existing building would not actually be retained and the “renovated” property would actually be mostly new build. 6.3 Internally the building would be difficult to reuse other than for a nursing home but even then where the layout would not likely meet modern standards or expectations for such a facility. 6.4 Notwithstanding this, the building is not in its original condition, has been physically attached to the terrace to the north east by a modern, unattractive link building and has also had unattractive additions attached to the rear and front. The condition of the building is in no way the fault of the applicant who only recently acquired the property and as such is not responsible for the historical lack of maintenance of the building. 6.5 The detailed replacement scheme has been revised, following discussion with the Department and now more closely resembles the existing built form around it. It is submitted that the overall impact of the proposed development will be an enhancement of the Conservation Area, thus according with CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man and Environment Policy 35 and not in conflict with CA/6 or Environment Policy 39 for the reasons given above. 6.6 The proposed development aims to provide modern standards of living including car parking and energy efficiency whilst at the same time, presenting a traditionally styled building which continues important architectural elements such as height, finish materials, orientation and proportion. The development will provide much needed, sustainable accommodation in the Island’s principal settlement in a form which visually complements the area.”

3.0 KEY DOCUMENTS 3.0.1 Material Considerations Town and County Planning Act 1999 3.0.2 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: "In dealing with an application for planning approval... the Department shall have regard to - (a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) All other material considerations." 3.0.3 Statutory Duty Statutory Duty S19 Control of demolition in conservation areas “(3) A building to which this section applies may not be demolished without the consent of the Department; and accordingly sections 15 and 16 apply to such a building as they apply to a registered building, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. 3.0.4 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions (3) In considering - (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  7  of  35

(b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant Department shall 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.” 3.0.5 S18 Designation of conservation areas Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, 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, of any powers under this Act". 3.1 The Area Plan for the East (adopted 2020) 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East (Map 5 - Douglas Central) as 'Predominantly Residential', and the site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks or within a Registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site. The existing property is not a Registered Building. 3.2 The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; 3.2.1 Paragraph 6.8 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states;

"The historic built environment Local character and key features within the built environment, such as Registered Buildings and other heritage assets play a significant role in promoting economic and social prosperity by providing attractive living and working conditions. In addition, they provide economic opportunities through tourism, leisure and recreational uses. It is therefore essential that local character is safeguarded, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Particularly: o the buildings and structures associated with the roles of Douglas and Laxey as historic seaside resorts; o the harbours of Douglas and Laxey; o the historic infrastructure of the Steam Railway, Electric Tramway and Horse Trams; and o the historic grain of Douglas and Laxey old towns, including their street layouts, town yards, plot sizes and landscape settings. The significance of Manx heritage assets in the built environment is increased by their relative scarcity. Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas which might not necessarily achieve such status in the United Kingdom have gained a higher status in the Isle of Man where their contribution to national identity and the Island's story is highly valued.

Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time. Such innovation is crucial and with good precedent: some of the Island's best architectural examples emerged from the building design competitions of the Edwardian era." 3.2.2 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states; "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area." 3.2.3 Paragraph 6.9 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Creative Re-use

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  8  of  35

As stated in the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 7.25: 'Conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome'. It is recognised that retaining the best examples of built heritage for future generations benefits the resident population by celebrating its unique national identity and increasing the sense of wellbeing and improved quality of life brought about by beautiful surroundings. The value of mid and late-20th Century architecture should not be ignored as the best examples of these periods contribute to a rich and vibrant built heritage. Supporting the continued use and retention of these buildings requires a pragmatic and dynamic understanding of different potential uses. A proposed use which retains a building of heritage value, but requires modification to that building, is superior to a proposal which leads only to demolition or decay of that building." 3.2.4 Urban Environment Proposal 4 states; "Proposals which help to secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay, will be supported." 3.2.5 Paragraph 6.3 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Area Plan Objectives; iv. To identify and celebrate the historic urban environment so that it retains an active and productive role in contemporary life." 3.2.6 Paragraph 6.4 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Area Plan Desired Outcomes v. There will be greater recognition of the contribution the East's historic value to the local and visitor economy and to the quality of life on the Island. vi. The long term future of valuable heritage assets will be assured by creative reuse." 3.2.7 Transport Proposal 1 states; "Development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan." 3.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) 3.3.1 In terms of Strategic Plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 3.3.2 Strategic Policy 1 states: “Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.” 3.3.3 Strategic Policy 2 states: “New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.” 3.3.4 Strategic Policy 4 states: “Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.”

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  9  of  35

3.3.5 Strategic Policy 5 states: “New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.” 3.3.6 Spatial Policy 1 states: “The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island. 3.3.7 General Policy 2 states: “Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.” 3.3.8 Paragraph 7.32.2 states; "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 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." 3.3.9 Environment Policy 35 states: “Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.”

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  10  of  35

3.3.10 Environment Policy 39 states: “The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.” 3.3.11 Environment Policy 42 states: “New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.”

3.3.12 Housing Policy 4 states: “New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.” 3.3.13 Housing Policy 6 states: “Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive.” 3.3.14 Transport Policy 1 states: “New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.” 3.3.15 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.” Appendix A.7.6 sets out Parking Standard. Typical Residential 2 - spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. 3.3.16 Energy Policy 5 states: "The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied be an Energy Impact Assessment." 3.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.4.1 This includes policies in relation to the following; “POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected. POLICY CA/4 PROPOSALS FOR PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT It is important that designation is not seen as an end in itself, but that there be an opportunity for the designation to be considered in a wider context, such as that of an

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  11  of  35

area plan. It is this overview which will basically determine the long term validity and prosperity of the conservation area. For example, proposals and policies contained within an area plan may take the opportunity to improve matters such as traffic congestion in and around a conservation area by traffic management and improvement, the provision of off-street parking and the introduction of some pedestrian or bicycle priority ways. The plan will also prescribe the use of land and buildings within the conservation area and beyond and may indicate opportunities for enhancement by restoration and re-use, or if appropriate, for replacement of elements within the conservation area which detract from the special character of the area. POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building’s surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:- In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings. Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted. The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments. • The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  12  of  35

Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces, that in an age of rapid change, may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair; • The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building’s condition. • The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them.” 3.5 Net Zero Emissions by 2050 3.5.1 In July 2020, the Isle of Man Government published their Action Plan for Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050 - Phase 1 Progress Report & Delivery Strategy Post COVID-19 Pandemic (Version 2). The document provides an update on the progress of the Isle of Man Government Phase 1 Climate Action Plan, which was supported unanimously in January 2020, taking into account the positive impact that the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has had on sustainable travel habits, predominantly related to an increase in the number of people working from home. The document sets out a number of transport related actions for delivery to progress towards Net Zero by 2050, including the provision of cycle racks in public buildings, electric public service vehicles, hybrid buses, mobile working, promoting the use of public transport and active travel and developing an all-Island electric vehicle charging network. The implementation of this TP will assist the Island with progressing towards the Isle of Man Government's Net Zero emissions targets. 3.6 IoM Government's Active Travel Strategy (2018 - 2021) 3.6.1 The Isle of Man Government's Active Travel Strategy was published in May 2018 and sets out the strategy to increase the number of people using more active modes of travel on a regular basis, i.e. walking and cycling. The aim of the strategy is to put in place a series of mechanisms which will help facilitate more active travel, achieving a modal shift away from motorised transport. 3.7 Climate Change Bill 2020 3.7.1 Climate Change Bill has received Royal assent, albeit it is not yet in force and therefore has little planning weight; although it does give a clear direction of travel. If this had been in force the application would need to undertake the following; "(a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies - (i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration;

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  13  of  35

(ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems; (iv) biodiversity net gain; (v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and (vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or (b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development." 3.8 Our Island Plan 2024/25 Update “In the 2022 Island Plan, this administration set out a bold vision for the next 10-15 years. 5,000 new jobs, a £10bn economy, and a target population of 100,000.” “Crucially, we set out defined targets for this term of office as well. Namely, by 2026 we will have filled 1,800 new jobs; welcomed 2,500 new residents; 1,000 additional homes occupied...” “Further, there is an absolute need to make progress on our renewable energy commitments and indeed the security of our supply for the future, as well as to provide more homes...” 3.9 Manual for Manx Roads 3.9.1 "The Manual for Manx Roads (MfMR) is published by the Isle of Man Government's Department of Infrastructure. Our aims are:  to ensure the highway network enhances accessibility to goods and services and encourage a diversity of transport modes  to ensure the highway network provides for safe interactions between transport modes  to maintain a safe, inclusive and serviceable highway network" 3.10 Woodbourne Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2003 3.10.1 "It is clear that in the planning of the Gardens and Squares in the Conservation Area, there was an overriding intention that the gardens are in harmony with the architecture that evolved around them. House frontages with their decorative features such as railings, gates, cornices, etched glass and ridge tiles were intended to be seen and appreciated for their individuality and splendour. The open Properties benefit from retention of plaster mouldings, sliding sash windows, the variety of bays, stuccoed quoins, string courses and hooded mouldings, all adding to the richness of architectural forms. The abundance of high quality fabric is a major contributory factor to the distinct character of the area. These qualities have survived many generations and enrich the quality of our built environment. Despite the increasing intrusions of modern day living. It is very difficult to draw a definite edge to the Conservation Area, as the buildings continue in typical design and quality detail into adjacent roads and avenues. The repetition of form along arterial and secondary routes, combined with a variety of detail, serves to draw these adjoining thoroughfares into a cohesive whole which is worthy of recognition and protection. The 'green elements of this environment and their immediate surrounds provide an obvious centre on which to base an appraisal of this fine array of predominantly nineteenth century architecture." 3.10.2 The area of Eastfield, Mount Bradda, Brighton Terrace and Westmount corresponds to that shown on a plan dated 1851 prepared by George Raby, Architect and Surveyor and titled 'Plan of Building Ground situated at Rosemount'. The area was part of the Joyner estate and the plan shows layout of 53 dwellings. Fourteen were built and from what is now known as Eastfield, but the remainder were not built in their original form. The 1869 Ordnance Survey Map shows the present street pattern with central gardens and with Eastfield House and Rose Lodge occupying corner positions at the east and west side of the square. The terrace known as Eastfield was

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  14  of  35

an early approach to Town Planning in that covenants were incorporated into deeds of sale in an endeavour to control the design of properties and the retention of open space. The evolution of the remaining properties fronting onto the gardens happened predominantly in the 1880's and resulted in an interesting and lively mix of architecture. The retention of private allotment gardens is a survivor of the original plan." 3.11 DEFA's Residential Design Guide 2021 3.11.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, 3.1 Local Distinctiveness, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme. 3.11.2 Paragraphs 3.1.3 to 3.1.8 are particularly relevant to the current application: "3.1.3 New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged. 3.1.4 Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area. 3.1.5 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'.

3.1.6 The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features such as trees or water features. 3.1.7 The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines, and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement. 3.1.8 If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place"."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 This application runs contemporaneously with PA 24/00299/CON for the demolition elements relating the current application. 4.2 Other applications relevant to the current application are: 4.3 Demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and the creation of five new 4 bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, amended access, amended drainage, and landscaping - 23/00526/B - REFUSED on the following grounds; “R 1. The demolition of the Eastfield Mansion house which is judged to contribute to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  15  of  35

Conservation Area is considered to be unacceptable as the application has not demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the building nor provided sufficient justification for its total loss. Therefore, it is considered that the proposals would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and are contrary to Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Environment Policies 35 and 39, Strategic Policy 4 (a), and Paragraph 7.32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; policies RB/6, CA/2 and CA/6 of PPS1/01, and Urban Environment Proposal 3 and 4 of the Area Plan for the East. Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposals be refused on these grounds. R 2. The proposed first and second floor windows on the rear (north) elevation of the proposed terrace dwellings, by virtue of their proximity to the neighbouring dwelling and boundary, and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into Emsdale,' Hawarden Avenue, Douglas, to the detriment of their residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021. R 3. Whilst it is noted that the proposed terrace has been designed to bear some traditional features, it is not considered that the design, form and appearance of the proposed dwellings would serve to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the site and Conservation area as an appropriate replacement, given that it is not truly traditional, and fails to integrate a number of the key features on the existing terraces around the allotments that serve to define the character of this part of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The scheme is, therefore, considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 35 and Policy CA/2 of Planning Circular 1/01.” 4.4 Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 23/00526/B - 23/00527/CON - REFUSED on the following grounds; “R 1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses. R 2. The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character. R 3. The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. R 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. R 5. The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.” 4.5 Demolition of all existing buildings on site - 22/01326/CON - REFUSED on the following grounds; “R 1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  16  of  35

R 2. The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character. R 3. The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. R 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. R 5. The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.” 4.6 Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 20/00280/B - 20/00281/CON - APPROVED with attached condition; “C 2. This consent relates to the demolition of the side and rear extensions, in addition to the three storey infill on the eastern elevation as shown in the approved drawings and to no other works. Reason: The building is not Registered and as such, all that is within the control of this application is the demolition of the extensions and three storey infill as provided by Section 19 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.” 4.7 Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling - 20/00280/B - APPROVED 4.8 Re-roofing of building with slate to replicate existing - 06/00605/B - APPROVED 4.9 Erection of replacement porch and installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to front & side elevations - 97/00567/B - APPROVED 4.10 Approval in principle to construct 4 apartment building - 99/01614/A - REFUSED at appeal on 6 October 2000. 4.11 Alterations, first floor extension and construction of nursing wing - 92/01197/B - APPROVED at appeal on 1st January 1994. 4.12 Alterations and extensions & construction of 35-bed nursing wing - 92/00095/B

• REFUSED 4.13 Conversion to residential home for the elderly, extension to kitchen, and link corridor, 14 Eastfield and Eastfield House - 86/00782/B - APPROVED 4.14 Approval in principle to conversion of premises into residential home for the elderly and incorporation into Eastfield House, 14 Eastfield - 86/00609/A - APPROVED

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division comments; 22.03.2024 “After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as this is a similar proposal to previous application 23/00526/B which Highway Services did not oppose, subject to conditions on permission for access, layout, vehicle turning areas and parking, bins and cycle storage completed before first occupation.” 12.04.2024 “Highways HDC has reviewed the updated information for application 24/00298/B dated 9 Apr 2024 online and have no further comments to make.”

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  17  of  35

5.2 Douglas Borough Council support the application (13.05.2024). 5.3 Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) Comments (17.04.2024); 04.04.2024 “...We are also content with the locations of the proposed swift nest bricks on the north east elevation. However the previous application for this site also included bat bricks on the garage block, which no longer for part of the plans, and so bat bricks should be repositioned elsewhere on site and our recommendation would be somewhere on the south or south west elevation. These bricks should then be secured via condition.” 17.04.2024 “The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are content with the information contained in the updated Proposed Site Plan (Drg No. P-101 Rev B), which shows a hawthorn hedge instead of a laurel hedge, and the updated Proposed Floor Plans, Elevations & Typical Sections (Drg No. P-102 A) which now includes the installation of integrated bat and swift boxes. Should this application be approved we recommend that conditions are secured for the landscaping to be undertaken as per the site plan and for any tree or shrub which die or become damaged within 5 years from the date of planting to be replaced, and for the bat and bird bricks to be installed as per the elevation drawings.” 5.4 Assistant Registered Buildings Officer comments; “Summary Comment Object - In my view the demolition of Eastfield House would fail to preserve or enhance the special character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, and the application would therefore fail the statutory tests within section 18 of the Act, and be contrary to strategic policy 4, environment policy 35 and environment policy 39 of the Strategic Plan. Scope of comments These comments relate to the impact of the proposals on the character or appearance of a conservation area.” 5.4.1 And “...Report detail A Built Heritage Statement (HS) has been submitted in support of this application. My comments are focused on the assessments and conclusions made within that document, and on the impact that the demolition of Eastfield House would have on the special character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. Section 5.25 of the Heritage Statement reads “Eastfield House may have formerly held landmark qualities by virtue of its size, and position compared to that of the surrounding built form, and the use of rendered pillars framing the entrance drive. The street plans and old maps have shown that it was one of the first buildings to be built, situated to the top of the hill at the corner of Eastfield and Westmount.” 5.26 then states “However, in its extant form, Eastfield House no longer retains these landmark qualities. The surrounding mature vegetation means it is no longer visible from surrounding vistas and the modern link extension to the neighbouring terrace removes its prominence resulting from its isolation as a detached dwelling.” It is clear from various sections of the HS that the assessment has been made at a time when the attached link extension was still in place. As of April 2024, the link extension is no longer in place, and much of the vegetation on the site has

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  18  of  35

also been removed. It is clear therefore that the assessment of the building’s significance is not based on the building’s setting as it currently exists. 5.30 on page 27 of the HS concludes that “Eastfield House has only modest significance and this is principally embodied in its architectural and historic interest as a Victorian formerly detached dwelling and its associated decoration and early origins within the immediate area. Its architectural interest has been reduced through the insensitive later extensions and alterations.” As with sections 5.25 and 5.26, this assessment has clearly been made when the modern link extension was still in place. Given that the link extension is generally accepted to have had a negative impact on the building’s significance, I would consider that the fact that the link has now been removed has the potential to have increased the building’s significance. Section 6.4 states that the proposals include “The demolition of Eastfield House and its modern link extension.” Importantly, the proposal now put forward does not include the demolition of the link extension. The link extension has been demolished, with consent, and Eastfield House now sits on the site as a detached property. I agree with the first sentence of section 6.5 that “The demolition of Eastfield House would result in the loss of a building which makes a limited positive contribution to the Conservation Area.” However, as the property is now detached, the positive impact noted is no longer part of the application. I agree entirely with the assessment in section 6.6 that the “negative impact would be through the loss of one of the earliest buildings in the area, and thus the complete removal of its historic interest. Moreover, some of the remaining features of the building make a positive contribution to understanding the architecture of the surrounding Conservation Area.” As the reinstatement of no.14 as a self-contained dwelling and the removal of the modern link extension do not now form part of this application and cannot therefore be weighed against the harm resulting from the loss of Eastfield House, I consider the proposals within this application to fail to preserve or enhance the special character of the conservation area. An up to date assessment of significance should be undertaken which takes account of the building and site as it currently exists. It is established conservation practice that an assessment of significance should be the starting point for understanding the impact of proposed change on a heritage asset (ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments). I have concerns given the recent planning history on the site, that the submitted Built Heritage Statement has been commissioned to justify proposals for demolition and redevelopment of the site rather than being used to inform appropriate proposals that take full account of the site’s significance. In addition to the above, I note that a Structural Report has been submitted in support of the application. I have concerns that the report is not of sufficient detail to justify the complete demolition of a heritage asset that is afforded statutory protection given its position within a conservation area. I have attached a guidance note prepared by the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Institution of Civil Engineers. Although I appreciate that this guidance note is only recently published, and that the engineer that has submitted the report for this building may not be aware of its contents, I would expect any structural report being submitted that recommends complete or partial demolition of a heritage asset to follow these guidelines, as this would allow its contents to be independently scrutinised by an appropriately qualified professional. The Department has a statutory duty in

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  19  of  35

respect of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, and therefore it is important that appropriately detailed information is available for applications to be fully assessed in performance of this statutory duty.” 24.06.2024 5.4.2 “Summary Comment Object - It is considered that the total loss of Eastfield House would cause harm to the special character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. Scope of comments These comments relate to the impact of the proposals on the character or appearance of a conservation area. No assessment is being made of other matters that the case officer judges to be material in the overall planning balance of this application.” 5.4.3 And “...Report detail A Built Heritage Statement (HS) has been submitted in support of this application. My previous comments in respect of this application noted various sections of the HS that would benefit from an update given recent works on the site. An updated version of the HS has now been submitted. Whilst it is acknowledged that the significance of Eastfield House has been reduced given the modern extensions and loss of historic fabric that has occurred, as stated in the submitted Built Heritage Statement, I consider that the proposals would result in a degree of harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. As one of the earliest dwellings in this part of the Conservation Area, the total loss of this building would clearly remove all of the architectural and historic interest that the building retains. Eastfield House and its history contribute to the special character of the Conservation Area, and if demolished then this element of the Conservation Area’s special character cannot be restored. The harm resulting from the proposed demolition of Eastfield House should be factored in to any assessment as to whether the application as a whole is judged to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, as stated in Section 18 of the Act and the policies within the Strategic Plan.” 5.5 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) comments (28.06.2024); “The Directorate has no objections to this proposal. I recommend that conditions are implemented to ensure that the re-planting is completed and that the tree protection measures are adhered to in full for the duration of the development. Root damage is likely to be incurred to lime tree 183 as a result of this proposal, however, the tree has been designated a category C and I do not disagree with this designation.” 5.6 The owner/occupier of Emsdale, Hawarden Avenue, Douglas objects for the following summarised reasons: 19.03.2024 “To refurbish one of the buildings on the same site, this was an absolute nightmare for us, they brought down telephone lines between our house and next door they had no consideration for anyone and we could not use are outside space for the dust and upheaval of it all and we had to keep blinds closed as we were over looked. We live right behind it at Emsdale 45 Hawarden Avenue. If this is granted are total privacy will be gone as this site over looks our back garden sitting room, kitchen.”

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  20  of  35

30.03.2024 “We have looked at the new amendments on the plans, and there are no changes from the previous application that was refused by planning. The only difference what we can see they plan to add a hedge along the boundary which will in no way be beneficial to our privacy.”

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.0.1 The fundamental issues to consider with the current application are: o Statutory test (Town and County Planning Act 1999); o Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area (StP4 & 5, GP2, EP35, EP39, EP42 of the IOMSP, Planning Policy Statement 1/01, UEP3 & UEP4 Area Plan for East, and Woodbourne Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2003); o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation UEP3 from the Area Plan for East Written Statement and StP 1, 2, SP1, GP2, HP4 of the IOMSP); o Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g)); o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (GP2, TP 1 & 7; Active Travel; Climate Change; Net Zero 2050); o Potential impacts upon trees (GP2); o Energy/Climate Change (EP5); 6.1 Statutory test 6.1.1 Firstly, given the proposals involves the demolition of a building of interest within a Conservation Area, the first consideration is the statutory tests, which have significant material planning consideration which are outlined within the Town and County Planning Act 1999. 6.1.2 In assessing Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, this requires the Department 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. Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also stipulates that where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area. The need to preserve the building is further reiterated by Section 19 (3) of the Act which states that sections 15 and 16 of the Act apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building. As mentioned earlier the existing Eastfield is not Registered Building, but the test remains the same being a building and one of potential interest in a Conservation Area where there is a presumption against its demolition. 6.1.3 As part of the submission the applicants have submitted a Heritage Statement and further updated version. This statement identifies that; “One of the earliest depictions of Eastfield House is in the 1869 Ordnance Survey Map. Eastfield House takes up a prominent position, being one of the larger buildings and one of few detached dwellings in the immediate area. The only other built form which is visible from this time are portions of the terrace along Eastfield, another detached dwelling named Rose Lodge, and terraces to the east...” 6.1.4 Further, the statement identifies the basic layout of Eastfield shown on the 1869 Ordnance Survey Map is how it stands today. The statement indicates that a earlier 1852 plan of the area at an early development state, which the layouts of the area was similar as it is today, although this plan was not carried out with more terraced

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  21  of  35

properties built, instead of mainly semi-detached properties. The statement does indicated that; “...It is noticeable that Eastfield House or at least a version of it, was designed to sit more centrally within its grounds, acting as more of a landmark with projecting bay windows and orientation directly towards the street.” 6.1.5 In more recent times the statement identifies more modern extensions to the building occurred in the latter half of the 20th century, including the extensions to the east and rear of Eastfield House; plus, the connecting of terraced houses along Eastfield and residential development along Westmount and the surrounding area. The connection link between Eastfield and Nr 14 has recently been demolished. 6.1.6 In Summary the Heritage Statement states; “Overall, Eastfield House has only modest significance and this is principally embodied in its architectural and historic interest as a Victorian formerly detached dwelling and its associated decoration and early origins within the immediate area. Its architectural interest has been reduced through the insensitive later extensions and alterations.” 6.1.7 The conclusions of the updated Heritage Statement indicates; “7.2 The site comprises the former care home, Eastfield House, which is situated at the westernmost end of a row of terraced houses along Eastfield. The building is not registered; however, it does lie within The Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. 7.3. Eastfield House’s contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric and its historic interest as one of the early developments in the area. Nonetheless, it should be reiterated that the Conservation Area covers a large area of Victorian townscape, and the site only comprises one small part. Furthermore, there are no notable designed or intended views to or from the site. 7.4. The current proposals include the demolition of Eastfield House and its modern link extension, the retention of No. 14 Eastfield and the redevelopment of the site with 5no. self-contained dwellings with associated parking and private gardens. The proposals have been driven by the internal layout, poor condition and financial viability of the site as it presently stands, even with an approval for its conversion to a single family dwelling, and the financial viability of the site to be converted into flats. Overall, the proposals will result in some negative impact to the significance of the Conservation Area through the demolition of an early dwelling. However, as per POLICY CA/6 in Planning Policy Statement 1/01, this negative impact should be weighed against the merits or public benefits of the proposals, including any heritage benefits. These include: • Reinstatement No. 14 as a self-contained, single family dwelling; • Removal of an empty, dilapidated dwelling from the streetscene; • Removal of the three-storey link and other modern inappropriate extensions, which are considered to detract from the Conservation Area; and • The provision of 5no. dwellings to the local housing stock in an appropriate layout and scale to the townscape in which it is sited.” 6.1.8 The Assistant Registered Buildings Officer full comments are within Section 5.4 of this report. However, they conclude that; “Whilst it is acknowledged that the significance of Eastfield House has been reduced given the modern extensions and loss of historic fabric that has occurred, as stated in the submitted Built Heritage Statement, I consider that the proposals would result in a degree of harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. As one of the earliest dwellings

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  22  of  35

in this part of the Conservation Area, the total loss of this building would clearly remove all of the architectural and historic interest that the building retains. Eastfield House and its history contribute to the special character of the Conservation Area, and if demolished then this element of the Conservation Area’s special character cannot be restored.” 6.1.9 The applicants also highlight that in the previous applications the Isle of Man Victorian Society wrote in providing details of the history of the site but concluding that; “The house has been much altered over the years and is certainly not the best example of George Raby’s house design extant. We have no objection to its proposed demolition.”. Further, during the previous application the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society commented similarly, stating; “Whilst this building may not be a particularly excellent example of Victorian architecture and so its demolition not to be objected to, none the less, the Society would like to request that the new-build should be in keeping with the character and scale of other houses in the neighbourhood.”. Neither organisation has commented on this current application. 6.1.10 It is accepted that since 2017 when the carehome ceased to operate from the site, the building has not be appropriately maintained (not the current applicants fault) and has resulted in a poorer state of repair. The issue of condition of the building, cost of repair an maintaining it, adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use and merits of alternative proposals for the site as outlined in the IOMSP and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 will be consider later in this report. Purely in relation to the statutory test, the comments of the Assistant Registered Buildings Officer has concluded that a degree of harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area and as there is an acceptance within the Heritage Statement in paragraph 6.8 (updated HS) that a; “...negative impact would be through the loss of one of the earliest buildings in the area, and thus the complete removal of its historic interest. Moreover, some of the remaining features of the building make a positive contribution to understanding the architecture of the surrounding Conservation Area, so there would be a loss of architectural interest to the Conservation Area as well.”. 6.1.11 Accordingly, given the proposal would result in a total loss of the building this could be considered to harm the character and appearance and history of conservation area and would neither preserve or enhance it. Therefore it could be considered the proposal would fail Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and would weigh against the proposal. The Heritage Statement offers a counter argument and indicates; “5.24 Eastfield House may have formerly held landmark qualities by virtue of its size, and position compared to that of the surrounding built form, and the use of rendered pillars framing the entrance drive. The street plans and old maps have shown that it was one of the first buildings to be built, situated to the top of the hill at the corner of Eastfield and Westmount. Even the area plan from 1852, title 'Eastfield, Plan of Building Ground Situate at Rosemount', has shown that Eastfield House was always intended to be separate and unique to the surrounding properties around the square. 5.25. However, in its extant form, Eastfield House no longer retains these landmark qualities. The surrounding mature vegetation means it is no longer visible from surrounding vistas. Furthermore, the fact the building was built setback from the road and away from direct vistas up Eastfield or Westmount puts into question whether Eastfield House was intended to be a landmark in the immediate street scene. Indeed, comparison with original plans for its siting

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  23  of  35

not executed suggest its prominence in the street scene was deliberately reduced.” 6.1.12 As outlined previously (6.1.6) the statement suggests that the property only has a “modest significance” which has been reduced due to extensions and the state of disrepair. Visiting the site during the application process and the area on a number of occasions, namely along Eastfield, Westmount and Brighton Terrace (main public viewpoints), it is evident that the area is made up of mainly terraced properties, all of which do differ in style and appearance, given their construction taking place over a number of decades and periods. Two features that do differ from this terraced housing are the two detached larger dwellings of Rose Lodge (southeast of site on opposite corner of allotments to site), which is a single dwelling and the application site Eastfield. It is accepted that the property Eastfield is not a prominent building in the streets scenes, namely given other build development, landscaping within allotments / fronting the site and the properties orientation and siting in relation to adjacent streets, namely Eastfield and Westmount. During summer months the dwelling is well screened from public views due to the mature landscaping/trees to the frontage of the site. However, landscaping can die/be removed and therefore this does not have significant weight. The site during autumn to spring periods is more apparent, with the two projection gables being the prominent feature of Eastfield. However, again such views are more angled views of the property. It is considered the point raised previously that; “in its extant form, Eastfield House no longer retains these landmark qualities” is true. Arguably from the photograph (1860) evidence, the original dwelling was a third smaller than it is today and maybe was never planned to be a “landmark” building in the first place, but still perhaps a grander building compared to other dwellings in the area. 6.1.13 It is considered with the continuation of the development to the area and especially to the south of the site, this has reduced arguably the grander status the dwelling had originally, albeit from the heritage Statement which indicates a 1852 plan of the site and area depicts the layout of a prospective development of the area, of which is generally similar to how the area looks today. 6.1.14 It is accepted the works undertaken in recent times have reduced its architectural qualities, albeit when broken down are not substantial, namely made up of hooded mouldings above windows and string course below first floor. There are examples of far more decorative and intricate features to similar sized dwellings within Douglas. Arguable the properties greatest feature still remains today, that being its overall form made up of two double fronting projecting gables, which in this area and Douglas as whole is unusual for a Victorian property. The inclusion of the uPVC conservatory to the front elevation, uPVC windows of differing styles throughout and removal of architectural features in parts all detract to its quality. Potential extensions and additions to the rear are not especially of interest, albeit follow the scale and form of what you would expect of a Victorian property (lean-to roofed single and two storey outriggers). Overall, it is considered the existing property just appears “tired” in its current form. The fact still remains however, that the property is a unique building within the Conservation Area, which gives it greater importance and therefore it is difficult to disagree with the Assistant Registered Buildings Officer who considers the loss of Eastfield would result in a degree of harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. Section 18 (4) requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance and on this basis it is considered this element weights against the application. 6.2 Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

==== PAGE 24 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  24  of  35

6.2.1 There are a number of polices to consider namely Environment Policy 35 which indicates that within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Further Environment Policy 39 has a general presumption to retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. With these policies in mind it is also important to consider Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP. It is important to note that the written text (e.g. this paragraph) has the same planning weight as any of the planning policies within the IOMSP. Paragraph 7.32.2 again highlights the presumption in retained buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, similar to EP39. It does go further, indicating that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: 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. These four considerations are also outlined with Planning Policy Statement 1/01, which does into further detail for each. The condition of the building 6.2.2 As part of the submission a Structural Report has been undertaken. For information this report is the same that accompanying the previous refused application 23/00526/B. The officer at that time of considering the previous application; on the issue of structural report, commented: “Granting the Structural Report submitted by the applicants has sought to diminish the desirability of preserving or enhancing the existing Eastfield Mansion House by stating that "Retention of the building would only be possible through replacement of the majority of the components of the current build structure (i.e. masonry, floor and roof timbers, roof coverings windows etc.) and therefore the finished product whilst similar in appearance would effectively be a new build, there is nothing within the document that precludes dedicated steps to restore and enhance the existing building; which would be in the interest of the existing dwelling and the Conservation area given its historic and architectural contributions to the area.” 6.2.3 The previous officer also highlighted that; “...it should be noted that only in 2020, a planning application was submitted under PA 20/00280/B for Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling. This application sought to demolish the unsightly extensions, reinforce its fabric to make it thermally efficient, and add modern single storey elements at the rear to make it suitable for a modern family. In fact, it was argued within the submitted Design Statement that "the structure will exceed the minimum statutory requirements by reducing energy use, CO2 emissions, water use and production of pollution/waste during construction and use. Materials and construction methods will be chosen for minimum environmental impact and greater durability...It is intended to increase the buildings energy efficiency by

==== PAGE 25 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  25  of  35

influencing materials of construction and delivering passive engineering solutions wherever possible within the constraints of the buildings comfortable operation."” 6.2.4 The Department is unware why the applicants of 20/00280/B did not proceed with the works to convert Eastfield into a single dwelling.

6.2.5 There is no additionally information within the structural report to arguably come to a different conclusion. The submitted structural report again outlines a number of structural issues, and the reports concludes; “-The existing building is up to three storeys in height and is primarily a load bearing masonry structure with internal timber studwork construction. The roof structure comprises of structural timber members supported of external and intermediate walls. -The condition of the load bearing elements is poor and the majority needs replacement. There is evidence of poor construction and signs of structural movement. -The timber roof, load bearing studwork walls and majority of timber floor joists require replacement. -Retention of the external random rubble masonry walls has been explored. This would require extensive propping and temporary works to facilitate. -The potential for movement of the retained random rubble masonry during the construction period is hazardous. -Remedial works required to ensure the future stability of the external walls would result in extensive reconstruction of existing features due to installation of temporary works (this includes front elevation). -The retention of the external masonry walls is not the safest solution to facilitate the redevelopment of Eastfield House. -Taking all of the above into account, in our opinion the, the retention of the building is not economically viable. -Retention of the building would only be possible through replacement of the majority of the components of the current build structure (ie masonry, floor and roof timbers, roof coverings windows etc) and therefore the finished product whilst similar in appearance would effectively be a new build.

• Based on our findings we would recommend demolition of the existing structure to be the safest and most viable solution to allow suitable redevelopment.” 6.2.3 It is noted that the Assistant Registered Buildings Officer raises concerns of Structural Report, indicating; “...I have concerns that the report is not of sufficient detail to justify the complete demolition of a heritage asset that is afforded statutory protection given its position within a conservation area.” 6.2.4 It is noted that the “Introduction” of the structural report has been undertaken on the basis of; “No fixture or fittings were removed to afford a detailed inspection of the structural elements. External inspection of all elevations was carried out from adjacent ground levels. Internal inspection was carried out from each floor level.”.

6.2.5 Accordingly, without any detailed inspection of the structural elements, the Department does have concern that relying heavily on the structural report where no significant or invasive inspections having been undertaken, especially to come to a

==== PAGE 26 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  26  of  35

conclusion the building is of such a condition that it should be demolished, especially one which is within a Conservation Area and of interest. The building may be in a better condition or worst condition then has been found, but at this point that is an unknown. 6.2.6 It is noted the structural report does not conclude the works cannot be achieved to retained Eastfield, only that; “...Taking all of the above into account, in our opinion the, the retention of the building is not economically viable.”. However, one of the main differences between this current application is the inclusion of a viability report will be considered later in this report. 6.2.7 Overall, while works are required to repair the property; as would be expected to a building of this age, the Department has concerns that allowing the demolition of the building purely on the evidence contained within the structural evidence would be of limited material consideration. 6.3 The cost of repairing and maintaining and Efforts to Retain the Building/Alternative Proposals for the Site 6.3.1 As outlined previously, one of the main differences with the application is the inclusion of a viability report. This has been prepared by the applicants and advice obtained by a Director of Cowely Groves Estate Agents and Bell Burton Associates (Chartered Quantity Surveyors). 6.3.2 The full details of this can be viewed online. 6.3.3 The Viability Report essentially considered three potential options; options 1 and 2 was to retain the existing building and undertake the scheme to convert and extend as approved under PA 20/00280/B, resulting in a floor area of approximately 700sqm. The assessment is based on a high level indicative cost based on floor area unit rates. 6.3.4 The first option would be a rate of £3,850 per sqm x 700sqm (size of extended property) which equates to a total cost of £2,695,000 to refurbish the dwelling (including external works and drainage etc). Therefore the initial first option came to an estimate cost of £2,695,000. Further estimate land value of £400,000 needs to be calculated into any final costings. It is understood this rate per sqm would be very high standard of finishes. 6.3.5 A second option was again retained and extended Eastfield as indicated above, but this was at a rate of £2,375 per sqm x 700sqm which equates to a total cost of £1,662,500 to refurbish the dwelling (including external works and drainage etc). Again, estimate land value of £400,000 needs to be calculated into any final costings. This option would be at a lesser standard compared to the first option. 6.3.6 The third option is the current proposal to demolish Eastfield and replace with the proposed five terraced properties. This option has an estimated build cost of £2,095,000. Again, estimate land value of £400,000 needs to be calculated into any final costings. It is estimated that a selling price of £595,000 for each dwelling and therefore this would equate to a sale value of £2,975,000. After land value is deducted from the £880,000 residual profit, this would result in a net profit of £480,000 and a 16.1% return on investment. For information the general accepted a profit on gross development value (GDV) of around 15 to 20% for new house building and therefore the proposed scheme would be viable utilising the figures listed. 6.3.7 The Planning Statement highlights that; “The refurbishment of the property as approved would result in a building which in our would not be either desirable or a commercially attractive option in this location. This was tested with a local estate agent who was approached and advised on 14th February, 2024 that a detached property on this site would theoretically be worth £1m but potential buyers - and they suggest there would be low demand for such a property - would expect better access, less

==== PAGE 27 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  27  of  35

overlooking and more privacy. He also advised that buyers are now more economically and environmentally conscious and large period homes are less desirable if not fitted with some eco tech features. He goes on to say that the development of five 4 bed houses would be supported by the current local market as there is a lack of supply of family homes in Douglas in the region of £400-600k.” 6.3.8 Accordingly, based on the estimate selling price of £1,000,000 for the refurbished and extended Eastfield dwelling the first option would have a net loss of - £2,095,000 and option two a net loss of - £1,062,500 and therefore neither option would be economically viable using these figures and the selling price. 6.3.9 It should be noted that Eastfield as it stands today has an approximately floor area of 480sqm. No calculations have been done on the basis of purely converting the existing property without any extensions. 6.3.10 The Department did seek advice from the Head of Commercial at the Public Estates and Housing Division (DOI) who also had discussions with the IOM Government Valuer. He made the following comments in relation to Option 1; “As the Viability Assessment is a very high level overview of revenue and costs I have restricted my analysis to a similar level.

Option 1 Turning first to the likely market value of the proposed single luxury dwelling on this site, I have checked over the current agents’ websites to establish aspirational selling prices of large dwellings over 350m2, and up to 1000m2. I have also checked sales over the last two years via our access to Land Registry sales records. In our view, the mean sales price per square meter of internal floor area is approximately £3,940/m2 when calculated from ten sample sales of large single homes. This would equate to a selling price of £2.7m for a 700m2 luxury single dwelling. The great majority of large dwelling sales include at least 0.5 acre of associated land or gardens and as the applicant’s agent states, the subject site is to some extent overlooked and there are homes of this magnitude available elsewhere but for much greater selling price per square meter floor area than the £1,400 per sq m which the agent estimates (this is based on the property having a selling price of £1,000,000/700sqm=£1,400). Both the Government Valuer and I consider that a dwelling of this size, assuming a high quality refurbishment or redevelopment for a single dwelling, would have a market value of between £2.0m and £2.3m.

The reasoning behind these opinions is that the level of refurbishment cost, estimated at £3,850 per sq.m, is extraordinarily high and indicates a finished dwelling which would be viewed by the market as very best in class with every luxury and the highest degree of latest technology embedded within the development. This level of finish would to some extent mitigate the shortcomings of location and site constraints. We are unaware of any current residential refurbishment scheme, present or past, which has a construction budget at this level. Technical publications and Estimating data do not refer to refurbishment construction costs for residential in excess of £3,500 per sq.m. In summary, the market value of £2.3m for a ‘highest specification achievable’ single dwelling on this site, with a construction budget of say £2.1m., equating to £3,000 psm, would, before land costs and cost of funding, have a gross profit of £200,000, which would be negated by the additional costs relating to land

==== PAGE 28 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  28  of  35

and funding, hence resulting in an unviable scheme from a purely financial perspective.” 6.3.11 There is clearly a difference of view in terms of the estimated selling price with Cowely Groves Estate Agents indicating £1,000,000 whereas the Head of Commercial/Government Valuer considers a estimate of £2,000,000 to £2,300,000. However, Option 1 which has the highest level of finishes, would have a total cost of £2,695,000 and therefore from a developable standpoint would not be viable. The second option has a total cost of £1,662,500 but would be finished a lower standard and therefore would unlikely to achieve the higher selling price (2m to 2.3m) suggested by the Head of Commercial. Even if it were to sell for £2,000,000 with the build cost of £1,662,500 and the inclusion of land value of £400,000 this would result in a net loss of - £62,500 and again not viable for a developer. 6.3.12 In terms of the option of the new building of the five dwellings the Head of Commercial commented; “We keep detailed records of dwelling sales in order to support our Commuted Sums calculations for affordable housing agreements, and again, simply taking an average selling price for town houses, (and terraced properties in this location would likely be very marketable), we would assess the sale price of a new 185m2 three storey dwelling between £2750 psm and £2950 psm, thus between £509k and £546k. This would result in a total Gross Revenue of £2.55m - £2.75m. These figures are estimates only and without a full specification for the homes we have taken a conservative view on selling prices. The costs used in Bell Burton’s assessment of a likely construction budget are in our view broadly in accordance with our own records for residential development construction costs. The costs have been split between three cost categories but excluding the Demolition element the cost per square metre of £2170 is about 5% higher than what we would expect to pay for 3 storey new homes; our costs will be slightly lower as our standard specification would be lower . There is always a degree of uncertainty regarding selling prices and costs dependent upon a number of market factors but in broad terms the assessment as presented is not unreasonable in terms of the financial components.”

6.3.13 it is noted that the purchase of Eastfield also included the end terrace Nr 14 Eastfield. It is noted that this property has recently been restored to a single dwelling and is advertised for sale for £435,000 (Black Grace Cowley Estate Agents). Currently it is sold ‘Subject to Contract’. The Department did seek clarification on this point as this could have an impact on the viability of any scheme. The applicants commented: “It wouldn’t be appropriate to include this end terrace property as this has previously been disposed of to a developer and as you rightly point out is being sold (think actual offer price was £ 425k though yet to complete. Note: this sale value was after 12 months of work and refurbishment of existing in line with that planning approval hence the net land value in any event would be less than half). The £ 400k land value shown as a sum in the viability report is excluding the end terrace property and is consistent across all the options shown. Even if that was queried and reduced (which wouldn’t be appropriate) it wouldn’t alter the outcome of the options shown.” 6.3.14 The Department further queried whether all land and buildings purchased at the outset should be included in the viability. The applicants responded; “...I don’t agree the property at 14 Eastfield needs form part of the viability assessment. That end terrace property was sold off to a local builder/developer

==== PAGE 29 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  29  of  35

at the point of us acquiring the larger site and they went on to refurbish it hence we have no visibility with regards that development. We sold the property for £ 200,000 and that was the end of it. A credible viability assessment should have accurate figures relating to the development we are proposing and the £ 400k land value shows that ie for the site for which we are applying for planning (c £ 400k to £ 500k). This is consistent with the c £ 100k per plot valuation (x 5 plots) we attribute to the plots as intended. Could amend the £ 400k figure to £ 500k in the viability however as am sure you would agree it wouldn’t really alter anything in the outcomes of the different options. Happy to provide you with any further figures you require however I don’t believe the viability assessment as submitted should be altered for someone else’s single dwelling development, even if we did once own it.” 6.3.15 It is also noted within the Heritage report that the conversion of the building to a number of apartments was also considered but concluded that the internal layout does not lend itself to such a use without significant alteration and demolition and this too was considered unviable. No further details have been provided on this matter. This was raised with the applicants further who indicated; “Having had many discussions with several estate agents in Douglas we were discouraged from going down the apartment route as what was far more needed in this town centre location was 3 and 4 bed family houses with self contained parking facilities and gardens. Think the issue remains though in that any attempt to refurbish what was there would require (as noted in the structural engineer report) replacement of the full roof (timbers and roof covering), all internal timbers would require replacement (joists where they have rotted going into walls and uneven floor boards), extensive external wall structural works to address broken lintels and more recent poor extensions, and generally have to build new internals due to the mix of finishes currently in situ following many years use as a care home. This would only leave some portions of external wall (part !) with little else original remaining, in effect then significantly more new building than original. Given then the modest apartment pricing in the town (as lots currently for sale) and the high re-build cost if we were to try retain the existing the viability would again be a negative outcome. Furthermore having given it significant though we can see no further use options for the building.” Conclusion on this Issue 6.3.16 Overall, the Department is comfortable from the figures submitted and the comments made from the Head of Commercial that a development to retain the existing building from a developable point of view does not appear to be economically viable for the reasons outlined and that the proposed development for five new dwellings is a viable option. There is an argument that an individual could purchase the property and undertake works, albeit the property was advised for a period and this did not occur. 6.4 Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area 6.4.1 On the basis that it is accepted the Eastfield building can be demolished, the next question is whether the proposed scheme for five terraced dwellings would be appropriate with the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area. The Planning Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted June 2016). This policy indicates that

==== PAGE 30 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  30  of  35

development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Further General Policy 2 seeks any development to respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and not to affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. 6.4.2 A concerns with the previously refused application was the design, form and appearance of the proposed five terraced dwellings and they would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the site and Conservation Area, especially given they were not truly traditional, and failed to integrate a number of the key features found on the existing terraces in the area. In response the applicants have amended the design to given a more Victorian terrace designed approach. The Heritage Statement comments; “In response, the two-storey bay window projections have been redesigned in a similar fashion to those found along Westmount terrace. New architectural detailing has been introduced, including render bands, cornice, hood mouldings and gabled dormers. All of these reinforce a more traditional style in keeping with the Conservation Area and yet maintain a varied appearance across the streetscene. Moreover, the overall layout, scale and bulk of the terrace has been readjusted. The properties are smaller, with now only a single-storey projection at the rear, similar to a traditional closet wing. These changes thus reduce the accommodation capacity of the dwellings and overall massing when compared to the adjacent Eastfield terrace, so they will be read as subservient to the earlier, historic built form of the local area. Also, the design now incorporates more welldefined rear courtyards/gardens, which was suggested was missing previously by the Officer.”

6.4.3 It is noted that the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal highlights that; “...decorative features such as railings, gates, cornices, etched glass and ridge tiles were intended to be seen and appreciated for their individuality and splendour. The open Properties benefit from retention of plaster mouldings, sliding sash windows, the variety of bays, stuccoed quoins, string courses and hooded mouldings, all adding to the richness of architectural forms. The abundance of high quality fabric is a major contributory factor to the distinct character of the area.” 6.4.4 It is considered the proposal scheme in terms of its proportion, form, design and finishes is acceptable and would sit well within the area. The inclusion of front boundary walls with railgun above continue this element found to other terraces in the area, and the sliding sash windows, string courses, hood mouldings above window and doors, and the overall design all match those highlighted as important features in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The only element which is missing is chimney stacks, which generally are important features of Victorian terraces. The applicants consider these are: “...not considered to have a detrimental impact to the special interests of the Conservation Area.”. If these terraces where in a more prominent location the Department would have a significant concerns with this approach. If you are designing a traditional Victorian property, then all of feature that make that style of property should be included. However, in this case, give the sites and the new dwellings orientation with Eastfield and the nearby roads, it is not considered the admittance of chimneys is fundamental, albeit a shame.

==== PAGE 31 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  31  of  35

6.4.5 There are some elements which need further information. The proposal includes roof mounted solar panels, these should not be mounted on the roof rather be incorporated into the roof. Further the front door designs appear inappropriate for the style of the property and therefore further information is need as well as further detailing around the top of bay windows. These matters can be conditioned. 6.4.6 The site is in an area where there is a statutory duty to pay special attention the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character and appearance. Overall, it is considered with the relevant policies outlined at the start of this assessment the proposed five terrace properties are of a quality and design which would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and overcome the previous reasons for refusal in terms of its design. 6.5 Principle of Development 6.5.1 The site is designated as being within a Predominantly Residential area under the Area Plan for the East, and therefore the principle of residential development on this site would comply with the land use zoning. 6.5.2 The submission is for a total of five dwellings on the site and an argument in favour of the development is the proposal could be considered to firstly comply with Strategic Policy 1 which seeks development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. The proposal would meet these aims. Five new dwellings within the centre of Douglas which is identified as by Spatial Policy 1 as being the main employment and service centre for the Island. Further the, proposal meet the aims of Housing Policy 4 which seek new housing will being located primarily within our existing towns and villages. 6.5.3 Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal complies with the outlined planning polices within the IOMSP the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and also the land use designation of the Area Plan for the East 2020. 6.5.4 This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposed five dwellings on the site as other material planning considerations outlined previously need to be considered also. However, this does weight significantly in favour in terms of the balance of the determination of the development. This is also one of the applicant’s main arguments in favour of the development and potentially one of reason to perhaps set aside the concerns of the loss of the existing building. 6.6 Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties 6.6.1 In terms of impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the orientation of the buildings on site, the position and distance of the proposed windows relative to neighbouring dwellings, the situation of the existing garage between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring dwellings on Westmount and the retained vegetation on site would serve to diminish any concerns with regard to the dwellings on Eastfield and Westmount. 6.6.2 It is considered the properties most likely to be affected by the development would be the two bungalows to the north of the site Emsdale and Kione Vradda both located on Hawarden Avenue. A concerns with the previous application was the new overlooking impacts would result from the proposal, particularly for Emsdale. It is noted that Kione Vradda does have a level of screening buy mature landscaping to its rear boundary. The concern was given the location of the new dwellings and they directly overlooked from the first floor and second floor rear windows (which would

==== PAGE 32 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  32  of  35

serve habitable rooms on the new dwellings). It was highlighted that only first and second floor windows on the existing dwelling which have views to this neighbouring dwelling are a window to a bathroom on the first floor, and the stairway on the second floor. Therefore, the introduction of twenty (20) new windows which serve habitable rooms, and at a distance of about 17m from the windows on the rear elevation of this neighbouring dwelling (10m from the rear garden which is the only private garden for this neighbour) is considered unneighbourly. 6.6.3 In response the applicants comment; · The rear elevation has been amended to remove the first and second floor rear projections previously shown such that there is 20m between the upper floors windows and the nearest windows of the bungalows to the rear. · The reduction in the number of windows in the rear elevation from 26 to five windows in the second floor (serving bedrooms) and ten in the first floor (serving bedrooms and en-suites). · Introduction of a new 2.4m high laurel hedge on the rear boundary to prevent overlooking from the second floor windows of the rear elevation (noting that these rooms are bedrooms). · The proposed building has a basic footprint of 31m by 12.6m with a less deep section adjacent to but not physically linking the proposal to 14, Eastfield. The building will be 16.7m from Emsford and 17m from number 43 at ground floor level and 20m from these properties at first and second floor levels. The building will be 12.5m to the nearest point of 24, Westbourne Drive and almost 17m to the main rear elevation of that property. There are no windows in the side elevation of the proposed building. · The proposed building will be 7m to the eaves and 10.2m to the ridge. The rear elevation will accommodate three floors of windows with the ground floor having large bifold doors. 6.6.4 The proposal with a greater mass and additional windows to the rear elevation, compared to the existing dwelling Eastfield) will have a greater impact upon neighbouring amenities to these two properties and surrounding properties. There are a total of 15 window openings (some have double windows) at first and second floor which have direct views towards Emsdale and Kione Vradda to the north. These windows serve bedrooms while 5 of these windows serve bathrooms. The bedrooms are defined as “habitable rooms” within the Residential Design Guide. They are not primary habitable rooms which give the greatest potential source of overlooking given these rooms are used more for living spaces (i.e. lounges/kitchen diners). As noted above, these windows are 20m from the rear elevation of the two neighbouring properties. This meets the Residential Design Guide as it is generally accepted a 20m gap to protect person from overlooking. Accordingly, this proposal would comply with this guide. It is noted these properties ground level is set above that of the site and the finished floor level of the new dwellings would be approximately 1.5m below. There is no concern of overlooking from the grounds floor primary habitable rooms (rear single storey outrigger of new dwelling, which includes bi-folding doors) given this level difference and also the existing boundary wall to the rear and the new proposed hedgerow/fencing properties. Furthermore, given the distance the proposed dwellings would be from these neighbouring properties and the height of new dwellings, it is considered there would be no significant level of overbearing impact or loss of light to warrant a refusal. 6.4.2 There are two further properties potentially affected, these being Nrs 22 and 24 Westbourne Drive to the west of the site. The rear elevations of these properties which have views of the western gable elevation of Plot 1. This would be approximately 17.6m to 18.3. The previous refused application, arguably had a greater

==== PAGE 33 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  33  of  35

impact than the current application, given the depth of the properties where greater and therefore the mass of the gable facing these properties would have been more. No refusal reason was given for this element. In this case, there are no gable end windows and given the suns orientation (east to west) it is not considered there would be any significant loss of light and/or overlooking to warrant a refusal. The existing hit a miss fence on the site would be retained and it is also proposed to plant a hawthorn hedgerow along the western boundary of the site which fronts onto the access lane and beyond to 22 and 24 Westbourne Drive rear boundary made up of approximately 1.8m high timber fences. Overall, while there will be a greater impact, namely a greater level of built element which is taller and closer than the existing Eastfield building, it is not considered the impacts would be so significant to warrant a refusal. 6.7 Traffic Impacts / parking provision 6.7.1 Parking is to be provided in the form of ten parking spaces within a new hard surfaced area fronting the dwellings and with a turning head with a reinforced grass matting. Cycle storage sheds are to be provided in the rear gardens of each property and have access to the side access via a shared pedestrian path to the rears of all properties. This complies with the IOMSP Parking Standards of two spaces per dwelling.

6.7.2 The access is to be altered to remove the existing pillars and a wider entrance (visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in both directions) with the existing large trees either side of the existing entrance being retained. It is also considered that these works are appropriate. The width of the driveway is such that would easily accommodate incoming and outgoing traffic from the site, and this is acceptable. The creation of a designated pedestrian access to the site linked to Eastfield would also ensure that there is adequate segregation between pedestrians and vehicles exiting and entering the site. These aspect of the development would ensure that the proposal accords with Transport Policy 6 and GP2 (h&i). 6.7.3 Highway Services have reviewed the proposal and advice that they raise no opposition to the proposal and therefore it is considered would comply with the outlined relevant planning polices and Manuel for Manx Roads. 6.8 Potential impacts upon ecology 6.8.1 No objections have been received from the Ecosystem Policy Team and they only seek a condition for the landscaping to be undertaken as per the site plan and for any tree or shrub which die or become damaged within 5 years from the date of planting to be replaced, and for the bat and bird bricks to be installed as per the elevation drawings. 6.9 Potential impacts upon trees 6.9.1 The scheme will result in the loss of trees: conifer, Manx palms and cherry. The existing large limes at the entrance are to be retained. Additional trees are to be introduced to mitigate this loss. The main mature trees and those which add to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the amenities of the area, would be retained. 6.10 Energy/Climate Change 6.10.1 The proposed dwellings would each be served by an Air Source Heat Pumps to their rear gardne areas and solar panels to the front elevation. The applicants indicate the dwellings will comply with current Build Regulations. The proposal would comply with Energy Policy 5.

7.0 CONCLUSION

==== PAGE 34 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  34  of  35

7.0.1 As has been outlined in this report, the main issue of the application centres on the demolition of Eastfield Mansion house which is judged to contribute to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The buildings in question is one of the oldest building in the area whose contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric, namely its form and its historic interest. It is accepted the works undertaken in recent times have reduced its architectural qualities albeit its greatest remaining feature still remains today, that being its overall form, being a sizeable two/three storey detached building, made up of two double fronting projecting gables, which in this area of Douglas is unusual for a Victorian property. Due to this factor it is considered its loss would result in a degree of harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area and therefore could be consider contrary to Section 18(4) Town and County Planning Act 1999, Environment Policy 35 and 39 of the IOMSP and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

7.0.2 However, it has been evidenced in this report that the retention of the existing Eastfield and the required cost associated with such works are not finically viable, particularly for a developer and therefore this weights in favour of the application for demolition. 7.0.3 If the loss of the existing Eastfield is accepted, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would represent an appropriate replacement for the existing building on site for the reasons that have been outlined within this report. 7.0.4 Furthermore, the potential impacts of the proposal on the amenities of the existing dwellings neighbouring properties surrounding the site are considered acceptable and not giving raise to significant adverse impacts. 7.0.5 There are no concerns in terms of parking/highway safety, the acceptable impacts on biodiversity and the impacts on trees and the proposal has sufficient energy efficiencies to meet current standards. 7.0.6 Overall, this decision is very finely balanced, the proposal has a number of positive elements, namely the creation of five new residential dwellings on a brownfield site within Douglas, which is the most sustainable location on the IOM, which also makes good use of this land and being well designed which would sit well within street scenes and the Conservation Area. The negative element with the application is the demolition of Eastfield and the potential harm to the significance of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. However, on balance and for the reasons outlined within this report it is considered the proposal is acceptable and therefore it is recommend for an approval, albeit the loss of Eastfield is unfortunate.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.0.1 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

==== PAGE 35 ====

                                      24/00298/B                                     Page  35  of  35

(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. 8.0.2 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 8.0.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...08.07.2024

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

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

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

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