365067

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  1  of  28

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 25/00788/CON Applicant : Kelman Ltd Proposal : Registered Building Consent for the conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse - RB289 (in association with 25/90789/GB) Site Address : 27-28 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE

Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.10.2025 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

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

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

C 2. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the structural works and repairs to the existing fabric to Number 27, including a construction methodology and timescale, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the special architectural and special historic interest of Number 27 North Quay is protected and preserved.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, or refurbishment works to an existing building details of cladding, window frames, external doors/frames, roof finishes, curtain walling, balustrading and outdoor raised decking/ramps/stairs i.e. all external finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the external finish has been applied in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained thereafter.

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

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  2  of  28

C 4. Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, or refurbishment works to the existing building (Nr 27) details of the windows and doors in Number 27 North Quay at a scale of 1:20 are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter, the windows and doors are to be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and fabric of the registered building.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. As outlined in this report the main issue to the potential impact upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area/street scene and Registered Building. In relation to these matters it is considered the proposals would preserve and be an enhancement overall to the Conservation Area/street scene and would not detrimentally affect the Registered Buildings (Newson's warehouse) character as a building of special architectural and historic interest. The loss of part of the Registered Building (Nr 28) weighs against the application; however, the overall benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of Nr 28. The proposals would therefore comply with Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32, 35, 42 & 43 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and Urban Environment Proposal 3 & 4 of the Area Plan for the East.

All other matters outlined in this report are considered acceptable.

In conclusion the proposal complies with the relevant planning polices and other material planning matters. Accordingly, for these reasons it is recommended the application is approved.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

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

20.08.2025

Location Plan 210-00 Existing Floor Plans 210-01 Proposed Site Plan 210-02 Proposed Floor Plans & Section 210-03 Existing Site Plan 210-04 Existing Elevations 212-00 Proposed Elevations 212-01 Proposed Computer Generated Visualisations 212-02, 212-03 & 212-03

Flood Risk Assessment - JBA Consulting dated December 2021

Design & Access Statement & Planning Assessment - Savage + Chadwick Chartered Architects dated July 2025

__ Interested Person Status

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do NOT have sufficient interest and should NOT be awarded the status of an Interested Person (do not explain how the proposal would impact on land that they own/occupy).

The owners/occupiers of Apartment 1, Hillary Wharf Apartments, South Quay, Douglas

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  3  of  28

The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey DOI (Flood Management) __

Officer’s Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATIONS IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITES 1.0.1 The application site comprises of Nr's 27 & 28 North Quay (known as Newson's) which form part of a the end row of properties of various styles along the northern side of North Quay with Queen Street running along the northern boundaries (rear) of the properties. It should be noted that Nr's 27 & 28 are Registered Buildings.

1.0.2 Nr's 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 North Quay to the immediate west of the site and physically attached do not fall within the application site, but is within the same ownership as the applicant. Planning approval subject to a S13 Legal Agreement was recently approved for the erection and conversion of eight apartments and two retail units (25/90441/B & 25/00442/CON) for these properties.

1.0.3 The site is very close to the Lord Street bus Station and within walking distance of Douglas Town centre facilities. There are a number of other public and private car parks within the area. Queen Street has very limited formal footpath provision, whilst North Quay is substantially pedestrianised, with some limited vehicle lay-by type parking for loading and disabled drivers. Queen Street provides access to a number of car parks and 'The Saddle' public house is located at the Eastern end at its junction with North Quay.

1.0.4 As mention the application properties vary in style, height, scales, form, finishes and overall design. Accordingly the below comments on each of the properties individually;

Nrs 27 - 28 1.0.5 The applicants have indicated that the existing Nr 27 property consists of a traditional four-Storey warehouse building facing both North Quay and Queen Street to the rear, and is constructed of Manx stone walls under a pitched slated roof. Further they comment that Nr 28 consists of a traditional two-storey building (with small cellar), which is currently accessed via No.27. The building is constructed of rendered and painted Manx stone walls under a pitched slate roof, and forms the corner of the junction of North Quay with Queen Street. The existing building has undergone significant alteration to its openings in the past. The applicants have indicated that the application site is currently accessed via pedestrian access from North Quay. The former retail use used the adjacent No. 26 for loading/parking.

1.0.6 The applicants have indicated that the combined site for No27-28 has a footprint of 168 square metres. The buildings combined have an approximate total floor area (measured externally) of 540sqm.

1.0.7 The Registered Buildings Officer has previously commented that Newson's Warehouse, Nrs 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century; they are important survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular architecture particularly in an area that was substantially cleared in the 1930's. As historic quayside buildings they provide the character and context to the conservation area.

2.0 PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  4  of  28

2.0.1 The application seeks approval for the Registered Building Consent for the conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse - RB289 (in association with 25/90789/GB).

2.0.2 The applicant's Planning Statement in support of the scheme (relating to Nr 27) indicates; "2.01 The previous refusals (22/00148CON/22/00149/GB) for redevelopment of both the registered buildings contained exhaustive structural arguments from five sets of structural engineers. We see little value in repeating these arguments for and against retention, other than to state that none of arguments for retention established a likely cost or safe method of conversion.

2.02 No 27 North Quay is a former warehouse building of four storeys. It is in a poor state of repair. It should be noted that nos 27 and 28 were in a poor state of repair when Kelman purchased them and the planning department subsequently registered them. Nos 27 and 28 also have significant structural issues. In the case of no.27 this involves significant movement and torsion of the rear wall.

2.03 Kelman obtained the advice of three structural engineers independently and all came to the same conclusion. In order to safely retain the buildings, it will be necessary to lift in and locate an internal steel frame to both support the existing stone walls (replacing the external raking shores) and replacement floors. It is necessary to replace the floors as they are incapable of accepting current loading requirements and are in poor condition. The ground floor will also need to be raised to achieve the recommended flood level.

2.04 It is proposed to re point (and partially re build where necessary) the existing stone walls and restore the external appearance to that captured by a number of historic photographic records. Although the building will be stabilised by the structural insertion it is proposed to leave the external steel Patrisse plates holding the tie rods (to be removed) to retain a record of the historic stabilisation methods that have taken place.

2.05 Internally the building will be converted to accommodate a bar/restaurant unit at ground first and second floors and an apartment at third floor. The third floor apartment will be set into the roof space where the original roof trusses will be retained and restored. New heritage rooflights will be used to assist with daylighting the residential unit. On the lower floors the poor daylighting opportunities within the existing building are not such an issue for the bar/restaurant unit."

2.0.3 In relation to Nr 27 (four storey stone building) the external building largely remains unchanged. To the front elevation it is proposed to re used of all existing windows openings, with the exception of a new opening at ground floor level (to left of main entrance) and installation of two additional roof lights. To the rear elevation it is proposed again to re used of all existing windows openings, with the exception of the installation of four roof lights.

2.0.4 The applicant's Planning Statement in support of the scheme (relating to Nr 28) indicates; "2.09 No 28 North Quay is a two storey unit that at various times appears to have been used as both a public house and a shop. This unit has previously been identified, by all structural engineering inspections, as being in a very poor condition. In addition, the building fabric and existing openings have been extensively altered from the original building. The further issue with converting this building is the limited floorspace it would yield due to a narrow triangular plan and 500mm thick stone walls. This thickness would increase when necessary wall insulation is added.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  5  of  28

2.10 In assessing all of these factors and taking into account no profit is available after conversion (even with grant assistance) we have advised Kelman Ltd that their only option is to demolish this unit and rebuild it.

2.11 The replacement four storey unit contains two uses. On the ground floor a small retail unit is planned, allowing the historic retail use to be continued. On the upper floors a single townhouse (with its entrance located directly from North Quay) and a roof terrace on the third level is envisaged.

2.12 The building design is deliberately modern to contrast with the registered building adjacent., using a combination of vertical timber-like boarding and render. Whilst taller than the existing building the height remains lower than the existing warehouse of no.27.

2.13 A combination of additional floor area and sustainable use proposals should enable the proposal for no.27 to be a viable construction with the proposed grant assistance available."

2.0.5 In relation to Nr 28 (two storey painted render building) the proposal would be to demolished this in its entirety and replaced with a new three and four storey buildings as outlined above.

2.0.6 The proposal also seeks approval for the creation of external access ramps, stairs with some limited outdoor seating areas which would front the two buildings. These are demountable and independent from the buildings i.e. not physically attached). The design of these are similar in design as those recently approved under PA 25/90441/B (Nr's 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 North Quay).

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.0.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application;

3.0.2 Conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse (in association with 25/00788/CON) - 25/90789/GB - PENDING CONSIDERATION

3.0.3 Erection and conversion of eight apartments and two retail units (in association with 25/00442/CON) - 25/90441/B - APPROVED SUBJECT TO LEGAL AGREEMENT

3.0.4 Registered building consent for demolition of 22/23 North Quay and 25/26 North Quay (in association with 25/90441/B) - APPROVED

3.0.5 Demolition of No's 22, 23 ,25, 26, 27 and 28 North Quay, conversion of No. 24 North Quay and redevelopment to provide ten apartments and three bar/restaurant units (use class 3) (in association with 22/00148/CON) - 22/00149/GB - REFUSED AT APPEAL on the following grounds: "R 1. Notwithstanding its general condition, sufficient justification for demolition of the Registered Building has not been demonstrated. Moreover, the design of the proposed redevelopment which includes demolition of Nos 22,23,25 and 26 North Quay (as well demolition of the Registered Building) is not of sufficient quality to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the North Quay Conservation Area, which would be harmed, bring the scheme into conflict with Urban Environmental Proposal 3 and 4 of the Area Plan for the East and Environment Policies 30, 35, 39, 42 and 43, Strategic Policies 4 and 5 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan."

3.0.6 Registered buildings consent for the demolition of the Registered Buildings No's 27 - 28 North Quay and Demolition of No's 22, 23, 25 and 26 North Quay which are buildings within a

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  6  of  28

Conservation Area - 28 North Quay - 22/00148/CON - REFUSED AT APPEAL on the following grounds: "R 1. Notwithstanding its general condition, sufficient justification for demolition of the Registered Building has not been demonstrated. Moreover, the design of the proposed redevelopment which includes demolition of Nos 22, 23 ,25 and 26 North Quay (as well demolition of the Registered Building) is not of sufficient quality to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the North Quay Conservation Area, which would be harmed. There would be conflict in this regard with Environment Policies 30 and 35 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan."

3.0.7 Registered Building Consent for refurbishment and conversion of existing building to form cafe bar/restaurant at ground and first floor, with business hub/club on upper floors above - RB 289 (in connection with application 18/01333/GB) - Former Newson's Warehouse, 27-28 North Quay - 18/01334/CON - APPROVED

3.0.8 Refurbishment and conversion of existing building to form Cafe Bar/Restaurant at ground and first floor, with business hub/club on upper floors above (RB 289 - in connection with RB application 18/01334/CON) - Former Newson's Warehouse, 27-28 North Quay - 18/01333/GB - APPROVED

3.0.9 Registered Building Consent for the demolition elements of PA 18/01331/B - 25-26 North Quay - 18/01332/CON - APPROVED

3.0.10 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of building incorporating dining and support facilities for a restaurant/bar at ground floor level, and 6 apartments on the floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01332/CON) - 25-26 North Quay - 18/01331/B - APPROVED

3.0.11 Registered Building Consent for the demolition elements of PA 18/01329/B - 22-23 North Quay - 18/01330/CON - APPROVED

3.0.12 Demolition of part of existing building to rear, conversion of remaining building, erection of new build element to rear of site, all to form cafe/bar/restaurant at ground and basement levels and 6 apartments on floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01330/CON) - 22-23 North Quay - 18/01329/B - APPROVED

3.0.11 Demolition of existing building and replacement with mixed use development including restaurant/cafe/bar, 6 apartments on the upper floors, rooftop garden, and associated parking/refuse facilities - 22-23 North Quay - 17/01320/B - REFUSED on the following grounds; "R1. The proposal by way of its layout, scale, form and design would have a significant deleterious impact on the character and quality of the streetscene and is considered to be contrary to General policy 2 (b); (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 . R2. The proposed design of the front façade would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance within Conservation Area within which it is located and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. R3. The application site is identified as being within a flood risk area and there is no flood risk assessment put forward or mitigating design measurers to protect occupants of the building or the building itself to address the concerns of flood risk, it is therefore contrary to EP10 and GP2(l). R4. In the absence of any evidence for consideration to override the general presumption to retain building in this conservation area, the proposal would be considered contrary to EP39 and PP 1/01 as there is no justification to warrant an exception for demolition. R5. The design of the proposal in relation to the access to the residential apartments does not take account of personal safety or security and so is considered contrary to Strategic Plan policy GP2(m)".

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  7  of  28

3.0.13 Conversion of existing shop, dwelling and warehouse to offices - 22 - 23 North Quay - 14/01243/B - APPROVED

3.0.14 Alterations and extension to office - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay - 00/02205/B

• APPROVED

3.0.15 Alterations and refurbishment to create office accommodation and gallery - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay - 97/00783/B - APPROVED

3.0.16 Approval in principle to demolition of existing and erection of new shop/offices - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay - 90/01498/A - REFUSED at APPEAL

4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS 4.1 Material Considerations

Town and County Planning Act 1999 4.1.1 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."

4.1.2 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

4.1.3 Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "In considering - (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or (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".

4.1.4 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".

4.1.5 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are: o The Area Plan for the East (2020); and o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

4.1.6 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.2 and 4.3 below.

4.1.7 The following documents are also considered to be relevant: o Our Island Plan 2025/26 Update "To work towards a more secure, vibrant and sustainable Island nation for all, our focus is on five interrelated priorities as developed from early engagement with Tynwald Members in October 2021. Each priority relies on cross-Government working and has its own vision, reflecting the aim, commitments and focus of this administration, which seeks to put people at the heart of service delivery and policy-making.

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  8  of  28

The focus for Government must be on straightforward delivery on the issues that matter most, with clear emphasis on creating a sustainable future and being an attractive destination for people and business. Whilst Our Island Plan sets out a vision for the next 10-15 years, with the actions to be taken over the course of this administration, Government must be ready to adapt to changing priorities, updating policy and taking a long-term view."

o Manual for Manx Roads - "The Manual for Manx Roads (MfMR) is published by the Isle of Man Government's Department of Infrastructure. Our aims are: o to ensure the highway network enhances accessibility to goods and services and encourage a diversity of transport modes o to ensure the highway network provides for safe interactions between transport modes o to maintain a safe, inclusive and serviceable highway network"

o Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation Of The Historic Environment Of The Isle Of Man- 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.

o The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards which are a material consideration.

o The site is within an area identified as high tidal flood risk.

o The site is within the North Quay Conservation Area. There are no Registered Buildings within the site. Immediately to the east of the site are Nrs 27-28 which are not part of the proposed development are included on the List of Registered Buildings (No.289).

4.1.8 All the documents are available on the government website.

4.2 The Area Plan for the East (adopted 2020) 4.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Mixed Use Proposal Area - Quayside" by the Area Plan for the East.

4.2.2 The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states;

4.2.3 Mixed Use Area 7 - The Quayside states; "The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern side which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side, industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. The Quays are also strategic freight corridors and maintaining access for commercial vehicles, including HGV's, must be considered in any proposed development. Due to the former industrial uses of South Quay, significant site preparation including decontamination may be required."

4.2.4 Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 7 states; There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay. There will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay, including the potential re-positioning of the highway of South Quay between Old Castletown Road and Fort Anne Road, for new uses in the following categories: o Tourism o Offices o Food and Drink o Leisure o Reception and function venues o Business hubs/share- service offices o Residential uses at first floor level and above."

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                      Page  9  of  28

4.2.5 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."

4.2.6 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."

4.2.7 Paragraph 6.9 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Creative Re-use 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."

4.2.8 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."

4.2.9 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."

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  10  of  28

4.2.10 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."

4.2.11 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."

4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) 4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.

4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.

4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."

4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.

4.3.5 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 and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

4.3.6 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."

4.3.7 Strategic Policy 3 states: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

4.3.8 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 11 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  11  of  28

4.3.9 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."

4.3.10 Strategic Policy 9 states: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park(1) location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."

4.3.11 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;

(b) make best use of public transport;

(c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and

(d) encourage pedestrian movement"

4.3.12 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."

4.3.13 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."

4.3.14 General Policy 4 states: "Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may: (a) restrict the use of land; (b) require land to be used in a particular way; (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land; (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or; (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  12  of  28

provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed."

4.3.15 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites. (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land. (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats. Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

4.3.16 Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.

4.3.17 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

4.3.18 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."

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

4.3.20 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."

4.3.21 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);

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  13  of  28

o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

4.3.22 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."

4.3.23 Environment Policy 43 states: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."

4.3.24 Housing Policy 1 states: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026."

4.3.25 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) 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."

4.3.26 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."

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

4.3.28 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".

4.3.29 Transport Policy 4 states, "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

4.3.30 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

4.3.31 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. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."

4.3.32 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  14  of  28

development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

4.3.33 Community Policy 11: The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire.

4.3.34 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 by an Energy Impact Assessment."

4.3.35 General Policy 1 states: "The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations."

4.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man includes policies in relation to the following. o General criteria for registered building applications (PPS1-RB3) o Proposals for change of use of registered buildings (PPS1-RB4) o Alteration of Registered Buildings (PPS1-RB5) o Recording of Buildings prior to Demolition (PPS1-RB7) o Access for persons with disabilities (PPS1-RB8) o Giving Special Consideration to Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/2) o Presumption against the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/6)

5.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES Full comments can be viewed via the online planning website.

5.1 Local Authority 5.1.1 Douglas Borough Council comment on the contemporary full application (25/90789/GB) but make no comment on the Registered Building application.

5.2 Government Departments 5.2.1 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer makes a detailed comments which are viewable online. Below is an extract of these comments (15.09.2025); "Potential Impact of Proposals - Registered Building 289 The statement of common ground, agreed by the Department and the appellants (the same applicants as the current applications) for the Planning Appeal in respect of applications 22/00148/CON and 22/00149/GB included the following comments relating to the special interest of registered building 289:-

"The former Newson's Warehouse, no 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century when the quay was developed from lands in the ownership of the Nunnery estate. No 27 was constructed as a warehouse and has been used for that purpose for most of its life and remains mostly unaltered. No 28 would appear to have been constructed possibly as a house put quickly to use as a public house up until 1913 after which time it was used by a chandler prior to being used as part of the Newson's shop. They are important survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular urban quayside architecture particularly in an area that was cleared in the late 19th century then again in the 1930's. The buildings now represent the only surviving warehouse and the oldest buildings on the entire quay, they are unique and a surviving remnant of older Douglas that predates the City's 19th Century tourism boom expansion and extensive clearing and re-development of the 1930's."

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  15  of  28

There are several factors to be considered in assessing the potential conservation outcomes of these applications. From the year 2020 through to the determination of the planning appeals for 22/00148/CON and 22/00149/GB, much debate has occurred in respect of the condition of the existing buildings and the extent of maintenance that has or has not been undertaken on the registered building. I do not propose to reignite the debate on these matters within these comments. The assessment of the potential impact that follows is based on a comparison with the building's condition at the time of registration (April 2018).

Clearly in respect of Number 28, the proposals represent total loss of the existing building. This represents substantial harm (total loss) in relation to Number 28 as a heritage asset. With the potential substantial harm to this element of the registered building in mind, I judge it pertinent to review the extent of alterations that had been undertaken to Number 28 at the time of registration. Photographs on the registered building file from site visits in 2017 onwards show that significant amounts of intervention have taken place around the enlarged openings at both ground and first floor levels. These interventions have been undertaken using modern fabric including large amounts of modern brickwork that is of very low quality. Although limited views are available of the roof structure, a 2018 structural report noted what appeared to be a 'mish-mash of timbers, some of which show evidence of decay.' The interventions with modern fabric are believed to have taken place during the 1950s. It is a fact that any scheme to restore Number 28 to its historic form (even one that removed the modern fabric and reformed historic openings using appropriate traditional materials) would result in a building that contained significant amounts of fabric that was not historic. The roof slopes of Number 28 were noted as being in poor condition in 2018. The roof was a rare surviving example of a torched slate roof believed to feature Manx slates. The roof in place at the time of registration has been removed without the benefit of registered building consent. It is my understanding that the roof tiles that were removed from the building have been disposed of. These comments will make no further comment or judgement on the removal of this element. However, it is a matter of fact that any restoration of the roof (again, even in a manner that replicated the historic method and finish) would result in the roof fabric not being historic. With all of the above factors in mind, I judge that the total loss of Number 28 would represent substantial harm, although the strength of the building's significance is reduced to a degree by the fabric that had already been lost at the time of registration (particularly at the South-East corner of the building).

The nature of the proposals to Number 27 are clearly significantly more positive. The proposals are intended to restore the building's North Quay elevation to a form that is shown in historic images dating from the 1890s and early 1900s. This would include the reintroduction of the rendered string course at first floor level, the reintroduction of Georgian sash windows at ground floor level, the restoration of the historic form of the upper floor windows, and the opening up of the building's load bay. The existing historic pattress plates and associated ironmongery would be retained. The applicant's agent has stated an intention to insert a new structural frame within the building to support new floor and ceiling structure. Existing external walls and roof structure would be retained, while existing structural columns would be reused within the new structure. The Queen Street (rear) elevation would receive a finish of breathable coloured render. Having reviewed the historic images available and the historic information regarding the building, I consider the proposals in respect of Number 27 to represent a significant enhancement when compared to the appearance of the building at the time of registration. As the sole surviving warehouse on the quayside, and one of the few buildings in Douglas dating from the 18th century, Number 27 is clearly one of the most historically significant buildings in Douglas. As a side-on quayside warehouse, the building is also the only surviving example of its building type on the Isle of Man from the 18th century. With these factors in mind, the building is clearly a nationally important example of its building type. While not as old as Number 27, the two storey building at Number 28 is still of considerable age. As discussed in the preceding sections, the extent and nature of the interventions on Number 28 do reduce the building's significance. As a surviving example of vernacular architecture, Number 28 does retain evidential and historic significance. The two buildings together do also provide a group value that would be lost.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  16  of  28

In conclusion, I judge the proposals to result in substantial harm to Number 28, and enhancement to Number 27. I also consider the four storey warehouse building at Number 27 to be of greater significance than the building at Number 28. In my view therefore, these applications seek to offset an enhancement in the form of a restored Number 27 against the harm that results from the loss of Number 28. I consider the restoration scheme proposed for Number 27 to be very positive, and this does offset the proposed loss of 28 to a certain extent. I consider this to be a finely balanced case given the harm and possible enhancement within the scheme. In isolation, the loss of the surviving historic fabric in Number 28 would represent a negative conservation outcome. However, a repaired Number 27 with a viable long-term future would, in my view, represent a positive conservation outcome. If the decision maker is of the view that the benefits outweigh the harm, then I consider it essential for the details of the structural works to Number 27 to be approved by the Department prior to the commencement of any development works on the site.

Potential Impact of Proposals - Douglas (North Quay) Conservation Area No Character Appraisal exists for the North Quay Conservation Area. In their comments for applications 22/00148/CON and 22/00149/GB, the Department's Principal Registered Buildings Officer at the time stated the following:-

"The North Quay Conservation Area is an historic quayside it is of historic and architectural interest as a 18th century quayside that developed from plots that were divided and sold off from the Nunnery Estate, The Quay's development was key to the development of Douglas in becoming a prominent town and becoming capital of the Island. The quay is also a surviving remnant of historic Douglas that predates the 19th tourism boom most of which has been lost due to extensive urban clearance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

The applications propose the external restoration of Number 27 and the replacement of Number 28 with a ground floor commercial unit and single dwelling on the upper floors. The replacement building on the plot of Number 28 would have a tapered plan form as per the existing building. As outlined in the description section, the replacement building would have a western pitched roof portion finished in painted vertical timber boarding, and an eastern portion that would be glazed at ground floor level and finished in painted render on the two upper floors. This portion would be capped by a balcony forming part of the fourth storey of the dwelling. The proposals within this application are intended to form part of a wider development running from Number 22 to Number 28 North Quay. The portion from Number 22 to Number 26 was approved under 25/90441/B & 25/00442/CON.

With regard to the current applications 25/00788/CON and 25/90789/GB, in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, the applications propose to replace the historic two storey building at Number 28 with a four storey replacement on the same footprint. In terms of historic special interest, the application would result in the loss of a historic building. With this in mind, the special historic interest of the conservation area would clearly be harmed by the proposed loss of Number 28. There would, however, be some conservation enhancement in the restoration of the four storey warehouse at Number 27. As with the potential impact on RB 289, the loss of Number 28 needs to be set against the potential benefit resulting from the restoration of Number 27. Furthermore in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area, the replacement building at Number 28 would have a greater massing than the existing building. The increased massing is proposed to be broken up by the use of painted timber boarding on the pitched-roof western portion adjacent to Number 27, and a contrasting painted render section in the eastern portion of the site. The introduction of a balcony at third floor level on the eastern end of the site also seeks to reduce the massing in this area. The overall scheme would combine the historic buildings of Merchants House (24 North Quay) and the former warehouse building at Number 27 (part of registered building 289) with contemporary buildings at Numbers 22,23,25,26 and 28. The new-build elements of the overall proposed scheme vary significantly in their form. Although I

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  17  of  28

do have concerns that the large windows and Juliet balcony on the front elevation are inconsistent with the character of the area and the wider scheme, when viewed together with the other buildings along North Quay, I judge the proposed scheme to generally be successful in maintaining the variety of built form that is a key aspect of the character and appearance of the conservation area. The increased massing of Number 28 is something that weighs against the scheme; however I do judge that the variety of proposed form does reduce the impact of this increased massing."

5.2.2 DOI Flood Risk Management Division comment (27.08.2025); "Whilst the Flood Risk Management Department has no objections to this application we would like to point out that the development is in area that is subject to regular tidal.

Suggest a planning condition that the ground & basement floors cannot be changed to residential accommodation as it would be a flood risk & to condition the details of the FRA."

5.2.3 Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA) comment (12.09.2025); "Detailed comments o The buildings to be converted or demolished are old stone buildings with slate roofs in a poor state of repair, located immediately adjacent to a river corridor, which increases the likelihood of bats being present. o The Ecosystem Policy Team therefore request that a preliminary assessment for roosting bats is undertaken on the buildings by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy, and a report detailing the findings of the preliminary assessment and any additional surveys, alongside appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, be submitted to Planning for approval. Due to the poor structural condition of these buildings we would be content in this instance for the surveys to be secured via condition. o Preliminary assessments for bats can be undertaken at any time throughout the year. However, if emergence/re-entry surveys to confirm bat roost presence are required then there are seasonal requirements (they need to be undertaken in the summer). o Bat surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required. Bat surveys should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust's Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines, 4th edition (2024). o The dilapidated state of the building also means that the building has potential for nesting birds. The Ecosystem Policy Team either recommend that an assessment for nesting birds is undertaken by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy, or an assumption is made that nesting birds are present and mitigation measures put in place on that basis, with new artificial nesting space installed in the refurbished building. We recommend that integrated swift nest bricks are installed.

Potential Conditions o Should this application be approved we recommend that conditions are secured for: o No works to commence unless a preliminary assessment for roosting bats alongside any additional surveys recommended by this assessment, have been undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy and a report/s details the findings have been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. This must also be accompanied by an ecological mitigation plan which details how the recommendations within the preliminary assessment, and any additional surveys, are to be implemented on site. o No works to commence unless a bird box/brick plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.

Additional Information o Roosting bats and nesting birds are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990, and this includes protection from reckless action. Building alterations/demolition without suitable checks would be considered reckless."

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  18  of  28

5.3 Third parties (full details can be read online) 5.3.1 The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey objects to the application which can be summarised as (29.09.2025); o The current proposals appear to pay little attention to the conclusions of the Inspector on previous applications / appeals (PA 22/00149/GB and PA22/00148/CON) in so far as these relate to Nos 27 & 28 North Quay including the total demolition of the latter. In addition there is little justification for the proposal in so far as meeting the criteria necessary to justify the demolition of a Registered Building and demolition of a Registered Building in a Conservation Area; o The red line site boundary does not cover the full extent of the proposals; o The significance of this building group is that they represent a building type that was synonymous with the development of Douglas as the capital of the Island as a direct result of sea-based trade and have survived three major redevelopments of the Quay. The buildings are also considered to make a positive contribution to the character of the North Quay Conservation Area and the wider townscape; o The building is possibly older than No 27 as the chimney stack on its western end appears to have had to be heightened in order to cater for the height of the former warehouse at No 27 and images show that the upper floor external walls of No 27 appear to have been built above the original external walls of No 28; o Alterations to the size / pattern of openings at ground floor level on the North Quay frontage of No 28 and the detailed design of the windows on the east gable were recognised at the time of Registration and not considered to significantly diminish the importance of the building; o The Inspector's report stated "96 The parties agree that the registered building is "the only surviving warehouse and the oldest buildings on the entire quay, they are unique and a surviving remnant of older Douglas that predates the City's 19th century tourism boom expansion and extensive clearing and re-development of the 1930's." and "212 --The history of No 28 is very much connected with that of No 27 and together with the warehouse, it is a familiar presence on North Quay.--"; o Demolition of No 28 would also mean that a significant proportion of the whole block between Queen Street and Quine's Corner has been replaced all in a Conservation Area comprising the remaining oldest part of Douglas. This being the case it would be apparent there is even greater need to justify the demolition of any additional property let alone a Registered Building; o No structural / condition survey has been submitted with this application for either building; o is unclear whether the applicant is referring to structural surveys undertaken on behalf of his clients or on behalf of DEFA. The surveys were different in their conclusions; o There has been no effort to retain the building in use; o Reference is made in the application to the condition of the building but no mention is made of the fact that, in 2021, there was a Repairs notice served on the owner of the property, the current applicant, and, following dropping of the appeal to the High Court against this Notice, none of these were carried out. The applicant therefore remains currently in breach of the Repairs Notice; o No costing is given relative to its importance and value and retention of either existing use or an alternative use. No consideration is given to alternative uses or incorporating it as part of the bar / restaurant proposals for No 27; o In total the proposal to demolish No 28 seems deliberately to ignore all of Strategic Plan Environment Policy 30 and PPS1/01 criteria to be fulfilled to justify its demolition and the Inspector's conclusions at appeal on the previous applications and instead seems to deliberately promote contempt of the status of a Registered Building per se let alone Registered Building in a Conservation Area; o It is noted that for neither No 27 nor No 28 are any plans submitted showing existing or proposed basement areas either in terms of layout or use, existing or proposed;

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  19  of  28

o It would appear that apart from diminishing the size of the boxes as they go upwards the current application pays no attention to overcoming the Inspector's previous concerns or relate to the existing elements of special interest; o In total the replacement for No 27 does not preserve or enhance the special characteristics of the existing building or its contribution to the Conservation Area; o The changes to bin storage and bicycle storage proposed in No 26 are minor but the lack of inclusion of the access to the apartment from either North Quay or Queen Street and the internal access from No 26 to No 27 within the red line site boundary is a major omission in this application; and o While the restoration of No 27 is to be generally welcomed and will be at a cost, as a Registered Building and as a joint Registered Building with No 28 and both being in the Conservation Area any scheme should enhance both buildings and the Conservation Area. The applicant has owned both buildings since 2016, did not object to their Registration but has totally failed to undertake any maintenance on them including that required by Repairs Notice. Such negative response to the importance of No 28 as is as a Registered Building and its scene setting in the Conservation Area and negative action in terms of maintenance should not be rewarded by consent for the current application resulting in its demolition and the destruction of the character of this part of the Conservation Area.

5.3.2 Apartment 1 Hillary Wharf Apartments South Quay Douglas (16.09.25) state, "Just build the thing".

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.0.1 Main Issues o Conservation Area/Registered Building Statutory Test (Town and County Planning Act 1999); o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, MUP7, UEP3 & 4 from the Area Plan for East Written Statement and StP 1, 2, 9 & 11, SP1, GP 1 & 2, HP1, EP43, BP1, 9 & 10 of the IOMSP); o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes and whether the development proposed would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the North Quay Conservation Area. (Town and County Planning Act 1999, StP 4 & 5, GP2, EP 30, 35, 39, 42 & 43 & UEP 2& 3 and Planning Policy Statements: 1/01);

6.0.2 CONSERVATION AREA/REGISTERED BUILDING STATUTORY TEST 6.0.3 Prior to the assessment elements of this application, it is necessary to apply the Conservation Area statutory test as referenced in sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of this assessment on whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area character or appearance and whether the development would affect a Registered Building or its setting.

6.0.4 It is perhaps important to note the following paragraph which was written as a "Statement of Common Ground" between the Department and the current Applicants for the planning appeal (22/00148/CON and 22/00149/GB), as it gives a explanation of the importance of the two properties within the Conservation Area and Registered Buildings; "The former Newson's Warehouse, no 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century when the quay was developed from lands in the ownership of the Nunnery estate. No 27 was constructed as a warehouse and has been used for that purpose for most of its life and remains mostly unaltered. No 28 would appear to have been constructed possibly as a house put quickly to use as a public house up until 1913 after which time it was used by a chandler prior to being used as part of the Newson's shop. They are important survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular urban quayside architecture particularly in an area that was cleared in the late 19th century then again in the 1930's. The buildings now represent the only surviving warehouse and the oldest buildings on the entire quay, they are unique and a surviving remnant of older Douglas that predates the City's 19th Century tourism boom expansion and extensive clearing and re-development of the 1930's."

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  20  of  28

6.0.5 Comments made by the Senior Registered Building Officer in relation to Nr 27 are given significant weight and the conclusions are fully agreed with. Without repeating these it is considered applying s. 16(3) TCPA 1999, the proposed development preserves the Registered Building Nr 27 (Newson's) as this submission does not proposed to demolition this building and it is considered the works proposed to be undertaken to this building would further preserve/enhance the building, its setting and features of special architectural and historic interest, which it possesses now and in the future. It is considered this element of the proposal adds significant weight in favour of the application.

6.0.6 The proposed works, namely to Nrs 28 will have the greatest impact, given the works are to demolish it. The Senior Registered Building Officer comments on this matter are again given significant weight and are agreed with. Again without repeating these, the officer has clearly outlined while there is a substantial harm to the strength of the building's significance (Nr 28) is reduced to a degree by the fabric that had already been lost at the time of registration (particularly at the South-East corner of the building). Furthermore, the conclusion of the officer is that the total demolition of the building has a "substantial harm" in relation to Nr 28 as a heritage asset. This is a fact and is agreed with. However; the concluding comments made by the officer that the enhancement to Nr 27 by the proposed works, which is also considered to have a greater significance than the building at Nr 28, does offset the proposed loss of Nr 28 to a certain extent.

6.0.7 Overall, the total loss of Nr 28 does weight against the application and it could be a sufficient reason on its own to refuse the planning application, as taken individually it may be seen as contrary to s.16(3) TCPA 1999.

6.0.8 However, it could be considered that while there is harm, this is outweighed by the enhanced of the works to Nr 27 which is a building considered to be of greater significance and therefore the development as a whole would comply with s.16(3) TCPA 1999.

6.0.9 In terms of the Statutory Test relating to Conservation Areas, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. As highlighted by the Senior Registered Building Officer there is no Character Appraisal which exists for the North Quay Conservation Area. Accordingly, he refers to the Department's former Principal Registered Buildings Officer at the time stated the following (during consideration of PA's 22/00148/CON and 22/00149/GB); "The North Quay Conservation Area is an historic quayside it is of historic and architectural interest as a 18th century quayside that developed from plots that were divided and sold off from the Nunnery Estate, The Quay's development was key to the development of Douglas in becoming a prominent town and becoming capital of the Island. The quay is also a surviving remnant of historic Douglas that predates the 19th tourism boom most of which has been lost due to extensive urban clearance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

6.0.10 Again comments made by the Senior Registered Building Officer have significant weight attached and these should be read in full. He concludes that; "The overall scheme would combine the historic buildings of Merchants House (24 North Quay) and the former warehouse building at Number 27 (part of registered building 289) with contemporary buildings at Numbers 22,23,25,26 and 28. The new-build elements of the overall proposed scheme vary significantly in their form. Although I do have concerns that the large windows and Juliet balcony on the front elevation are inconsistent with the character of the area and the wider scheme, when viewed together with the other buildings along North Quay, I judge the proposed scheme to generally be successful in maintaining the variety of built form that is a key aspect of the character and appearance of the conservation area. The increased massing of Number 28 is something that weighs against the scheme; however I do judge that the variety of proposed form does reduce the impact of this increased massing."

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  21  of  28

6.0.11 Again the comments and conclusions of the Senior Registered Building Officer are accepted. As outlined previously the quayside is made up of a variety of building forms, designs, finishes and the proposals, especially the new build at Nr 28 would continue this approach. The varied heights of this new building, finishes, setback of the taller section from the front elevation of the two building either side, all help to add interest and continue this varied built form and importantly be subordinate to Nr 27 which would remain the prominent building on the site. The proposal would also be read as a clear difference of old and new developments. In relation to the works proposed to Nr 27, it is considered these would represent an enhancement.

6.0.12 With regards to whether the proposal preserves or enhances the Conservation Area it is considered that overall the proposal could be considered to be an enhancement in some elements, namely works to Nr 27; preserve in relation to the proposed new build works at Nr 28 and harm in relation to the demolition of Nr 28 and the loss of the historical fabric of the existing building. However, this harm is not considered to outweigh the overall enhancement and benefits of the scheme. Therefore it is considered the proposal would comply with Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).

6.1 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.1.1 The site is within an area designated as "Mixed Use Proposal Area - Quayside" under the Area Plan for the East 2020. The proposed scheme is for a mix of restaurant/bar use and residential, the approximate floor area of commercial space with Nr 27 would be 234sqm with residential having an area of 88sqm. Within the new build at Nr 28, the floor area of the retail unit would equate to being 20.5sqm with the remaining floor area being residential (townhouse) having a floor area of 83sqm.

6.1.2 Mixed Use Proposal 7 comments that; "There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay." The Area Plan isn't entirely clear if this seeks these leisure use to be accommodated through the building i.e. upper floors as well as ground level. If it does, then this proposal would be contrary to this. It is noted that Mixed Use Proposal 7 in terms of the South Quay it does specifically mention;"...Residential uses at first floor level and above.". The Plan does also mention the use of upper floors within other areas of Mixed Use Area within the Town Centre. However, if the Area Plan is seeking the North Quay to be used for leisure purposes (i.e. bars/clubs/restaurants etc); the introduction of residential uses in this area will likely be impacted by such leisure's use, which operate during anti-social hours and will more likely to raise issues such as general disturbances and noise issues to the residents.

6.1.3 Accordingly; while the proposed uses could be considered contrary due to the wording of the Mixed Use Proposal 7; it is considered on balance that the use of some of the upper floors for residential purposes to be acceptable. Furthermore, the previously application at Nrs 22 to 26 allowed residential and the previously refused application contained similar uses and no refusal on this ground was given.

6.2 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENES AND WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED WOULD PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE NORTH QUAY CONSERVATION AREA. 6.2.1 Arguably, one of the main issue to be considered in the assessment of this application, is the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 which indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  22  of  28

development. Furthermore, as mention earlier in this report, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also requires that special attention is paid the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise.

6.2.2 With the above in mind the initial elements to consider in terms of the impacts upon the Conservation Area, firstly the demolition of buildings within a Conservation Area and second the potential impact of the whole development upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area.

6.2.3 Regarding the first part, the proposal results in the demolition of Nr 28. In terms of policy, Environment Policy 35 indicates that 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. Environment Policy 39 indicates that there will be general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Environment Policy 32 seeks that any extensions or alterations to a Registered Building should not detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP goes into additional detail and outlines that in additional to the above there will also be consideration 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.

6.2.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man CA/2 and CA/6 also requires consideration; albeit this outlines similar consideration to the polices indicated above. As mentioned earlier in this report, Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also requires that the 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.

6.2.5 While no structural survey has been included in this submission, the previously applications did, where it raised a number of structural concerns. Furthermore, the applicants on this matter indicate in their submitted statement that; "1.5 A number of structural assessments of the existing registered buildings were undertaken by Curtins Consulting Engineers and Structura Consulting Engineers on behalf of the applicant. These studies shaped design decisions for the above applications as they indicated the registered buildings were in a very poor and unsafe condition. Other than necessary essential repairs those buildings (27 and 28 North Quay) remain unchanged since the appeal decision was upheld.

1.6 Kelman then recommissioned Savage + Chadwick to devise a further mixed use scheme for the majority of the site (22- 26 North Quay) which again consisted of ground floor leisure units

• in the form of Restaurants and Bars - and upper floor apartments. As the future of the registered buildings remained uncertain due to their poor condition and without a safe method of retention and conversion, these buildings were excluded from that application until a safe, practical and economically feasible solution was found for them.

1.7 This application (25/90441 and 25/0442/CON) was approved at committee on 11th June 2025. No Appeal was raised.

1.8 This did not solve the issue of nos. 27/28 North Quay (the registered buildings) however. A further scheme has consequently been produced which seeks to convert and restore 27 North Quay. This proposal includes the insertion of a steel frame internally to support both existing external walls and new floor structures as this major structural insertion is seen as the only

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  23  of  28

way to safely address the serious structural issues that exist. This conversion comes at a considerable cost, which in is prohibitive to development.

1.9 No 28 North Quay which is a much smaller building and has equally serious structural issues is not considered viable for conversion. The structural insursion necessary would leave very little useable floor area and the cost would not just be prohibitive but unjustifiable in correlation to the very limited space available after conversion. 1.10 The site is named within the Isle of Man Government register of unoccupied urban sites (UUS 30) collated for the Area Plan for the East planning process, listing the site as mixed use. The site therefore qualifies for support funding from the Island Infrastructure Scheme. Funding for this scheme ended on 30th June 2025. Meetings have taken place with the Department of Enterprise who administer this scheme, prior to the 30.06.2025 date and they confirmed funding can be made available for the works to 27 and 28 North Quay subject to their standard terms and planning consent.

1.11 This funding has enabled Kelman to seriously consider the proposal as detailed in the current planning application. Whilst the financial feasibility is, at best, marginal the available funding prevents the scheme from making a significant loss."

6.2.6 The Department did seek comments from Structural Engineers when the building was original Registered in 2018 and then during the consideration of applications 22/00148CON + 22/00149/GB. Both engineers highlighted issues with Nr 28 and that there had been poorly implemented historical alterations (believed to have taken place in the 1950's) to the east and south elevations with the formation of large openings which has result in local failure and instability that requires attention reasonably urgently. While neither conclude the building is in danger of imminent collapse, both recommend works be undertaken.

6.2.7 From considering these structural engineers reports and the views of the Senior Registered Building Officer who comments that;

"It is a fact that any scheme to restore Number 28 to its historic form (even one that removed the modern fabric and reformed historic openings using appropriate traditional materials) would result in a building that contained significant amounts of fabric that was not historic.".

6.2.8 It is noted that to re-use Nr 28 it would require a new roof structure and roof slates and potentially rebuilding of the south east corner (corner of building on North Quay and Queen Street). Furthermore, the main ground floor frontage of Nr 28 which is made up of a large picture window, which is not especially appropriate for this building and was added in the 1950's replacing a doorway with two windows either side. The Department would prefer (if the Nr 28 was to be re used) that this original widow/door arrangement be re instatement. This would require further changes to the front elevation i.e. potentially steel beams to be inserted. Potentially with these changes, there is the potential for little of the existing fabric (some of which is not historical currently) remaining, certainly to the main elevations. The rear elevation (north) could be potentially remain, albeit this is a blanked two storey wall with little architectural interest.

6.2.9 In relation to cost of repairing the building, while no evidence or costs of repairing the building (nr 28) have been submitted, the applicants have commented;

"2.09 No 28 North Quay is a two storey unit that at various times appears to have been used as both a public house and a shop. This unit has previously been identified, by all structural engineering inspections, as being in a very poor condition. In addition, the building fabric and existing openings have been extensively altered from the original building. The further issue with converting this building is the limited floorspace it would yield due to a narrow triangular plan and 500mm thick stone walls. This thickness would increase when necessary wall insulation is added.

==== PAGE 24 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  24  of  28

2.10 In assessing all of these factors and taking into account no profit is available after conversion (even with grant assistance) we have advised Kelman Ltd that their only option is to demolish this unit and rebuild it."

6.2.10 The applicants while not providing a significant level of evidence, have indicated that; "1.10 The site is named within the Isle of Man Government register of unoccupied urban sites (UUS 30) collated for the Area Plan for the East planning process, listing the site as mixed use. The site therefore qualifies for support funding from the Island Infrastructure Scheme. Funding for this scheme ended on 30th June 2025. Meetings have taken place with the Department of Enterprise who administer this scheme, prior to the 30.06.2025 date and they confirmed funding can be made available for the works to 27 and 28 North Quay subject to their standard terms and planning consent.

1.11 This funding has enabled Kelman to seriously consider the proposal as detailed in the current planning application. Whilst the financial feasibility is, at best, marginal the available funding prevents the scheme from making a significant loss."

6.2.11 Overall, while a strict interpretation of the policy it could be argued that the application does not fully comply with the first three matters of Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP (i.e. condition of building, cost of repairing and adequacy of efforts made to retain the building). However, from the information available to the Department, it is considered that while the building could be retained and refurbished; it is likely that large parts of the building would need replacing/rebuilding with potentially little in the way of historical element being retained. While a new build could replicate the original building the applicants have raised viability concerns, especially given the limited floor area and shape of this building. Overall; on balance it is considered the principle of the demolition of the building in question is considered acceptable. The final element of the four considerations relates to the merits of alternative proposals for the site which will be considered below. The proposal is also considered to meet the overall aims of Urban Environment Proposal 4 which is to secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay.

6.2.12 In terms of the four element of paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP (i.e. merits of alternative proposals for the site) again the comments of the Senior Registered Building Officer are fully agreed with, which are outlined within paragraphs 6.0.10 and 6.0.11 of this report; where the officer considers "...the proposed scheme to generally be successful in maintaining the variety of built form that is a key aspect of the character and appearance of the conservation area...".

6.2.13 As outlined previously the quayside is made up of a variety of building forms, designs, finishes and the proposals, especially the new build at Nr 28 would continue this approach. The varied heights of this new building, finishes, setback of the taller section from the front elevation of the two building either side, all help to add interest and continue this varied built form and importantly be subordinate to Nr 27 which would remain the prominent building on the site. The proposal would also be read as a clear difference of old and new developments. In relation to the works proposed to Nr 27, it is considered these would represent an enhancement. Accordingly, it is considered the proposals overall would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and comply with Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01. Furthermore, it is considered the proposal would comply with Paragraph 7.32.2 in terms of the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site" which for the reasons outlined are considered acceptable in this respect.

6.2.14 With the above comments in mind, it is perhaps important to also consider the impact of the development in terms of the visual amenities of the street scenes. As well as paragraph

==== PAGE 25 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  25  of  28

7.32.2 of the IOMSP and Environment Policies 32, 35 & 42, additional consideration is also given to General Policy 2 (b, c &g) which seeks to ensure that any development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; and does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. Urban Environment Proposal 3 seeks that proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and that traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.

6.2.15 In relation to the works at Nr 27 (Newson's building) the proposal is for the conversion of the building, with little alteration to the external fabric. The openings are to be reused, with only a single additional windows at ground floor level being added to what was a pedestrian doorway, but now a high level window. The central section which currently houses the warehouse doors at each floor is to be replaced with a curtain walling system (glazed) within the same openings to retain this feature. The existing external render finish at ground floor level is also to be repaired and retained. Externally, it is considered he proposed works are acceptable and would be of benefit to the visual amenities of the area/street scenes. Condition 2 is recommended to ensure the retention and reuse of the building as shown on the submitted drawings is undertaken.

6.2.16 In relation to the new building proposed at Nr 28, in support of the application and the reasons for the design approach the applicants have commented; "2.12 The building design is deliberately modern to contrast with the registered building adjacent., using a combination of vertical timber-like boarding and render. Whilst taller than the existing building the height remains lower than the existing warehouse of no.27."

6.2.17 In terms of the massing, scale and form of the proposal overall; it is considered the proposal is acceptable. A previous concern of the development of the site (which also included the neighbouring site 22-26 North Quay) which result part of the refusal was the designs uniformed appearance, especially given windows levels at each floor being the same throughout the entire development, including the main roof ridges and eves line. The Inspector on this point commented: "In further contrast to the existing variety, the scheme proposes homogenous floor and cill levels across the development site, all aligned with No 24, cutting across the verticality that is so characteristic of the buildings here. Moreover, there is currently a hierarchy to the fenestration of the appeal properties - in essence, the windows decrease in proportion with building height. The windows proposed would be the same size on each of the upper floors. Furthermore, the windows shown to Nos 22/23 are large and square, their proportions creating a jarring contrast with the verticality of this group of buildings. There appears to be a profusion of glazing, at variance with the robust solidity of the existing buildings."

6.2.18 In considering the design, it is perhaps worthy to note comments made by the previous Inspector in terms of the context of the site and immediate area. The Inspector commented; "There is considerable variety in the streetscape here, with no two buildings being exactly the same. The four-storey Merchant's House (No 24) sits cheek by jowl with smaller, more domestic scale three/four storey properties, which in turn sit adjacent to a 1980s four-storey development to the west, and the four-storey stone warehouse to the east (separated by the site of No 26) next to which is the diminutive two storey building that is No 28 North Quay. A diversity of architectural styles is apparent throughout this part of the Conservation Area, with corresponding variety in ridge, eaves and floor/window heights and fenestration. That variety gives the quayside here a rich architectural 'texture' that is unified by a rhythm of verticality and use of a limited materials palette, mainly stone and render."

6.2.19 It is considered the proposed designs overcomes this concern and also adds differing approach to the neighbouring properties, namely Newson's (Nr 27) and Merchant House (Nr

==== PAGE 26 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  26  of  28

24) which are existing properties in the area which are read as part of the built form which the proposal would be seen against. Added to this is the approved scheme (pending Section 13 Legal Agreement being signed) which again added a more contemporary approach, especially the building directly adjoining the Newson's building at Nr 25 & 26, which was made up of a large glazed gable feature which fronts onto North Quay.

6.2.20 The proposal which includes a new three and four storey building on the corner of North Quay and Queen Street, would replaces the existing two storey building, which has a pitched roof and painted render finish. This new build is broken up with a three storey section which includes a roof terrace/frameless glass balustrades to its roof. This terrace is accessed from the four storey section of the proposal (further details below). Overall, the proposed four storey section would be approximately 4.8m above the roof ridge of the existing two storey building that exists at Nr 28. The proposed three storey section would be approximately 1.2m above the existing roof ridge of Nr 28 (excluding glass balustrades). The proposed four storey element would be approximately 0.9m below the roof ridge of the existing Newson's roof ridge, whereas the three storey element would be approximately 4.5m below. The three storey element has a painted render finish and vertically proportioned windows, with the ground floor being large made up of floor to ceiling glazed windows. The four storey element which has a pitched roof and a glazed gable at third floor, which provides access onto the roof terrace above the three storey section, is setback from the front elevation of the three storey element and the Newson's building. This section would be mainly finished in a timber vertical cladding and vertically proportion windows. It should also be noted that the windows within the new building ensures there is a clear difference to that of the windows within the Newson's building. A concern with the previously refused application related to the uniformity of the design, which included the window/floors levels running at the same levels throughout. This proposal would overcome this previous concern.

6.2.21 Overall, while the proposed new build would increase the mass of built form over what currently exists, it is not considered this in itself would introduced a feature which would have any significant impacts upon the visual amenities of the area/street scenes. Furthermore, the varied design and finishes of the new building would add to the variety of built form found along North Quay, whilst also ensuring verticality given its vertical proportions both in terms of the front facades and glazing designs. The timber cladding would add a new material to this area (generally render and stone), albeit would not be a prominent feature.

Rear elevations of entire development 6.2.23 A further concern of the prevision application related to the uniformity of the rear elevation. The Inspector commented; "Although of little architectural merit, the rear elevation to the appeal site is very varied, telling the historic story of the buildings as they evolved over time. It is very characteristic of this older part of Douglas.

That varied roofscape and texture would disappear with the scheme as proposed, with little if anything recognisable remaining for instance, in terms of any expression of the individual, historic plots, or variety in materials, roof slopes, eaves and ridge heights etc. Instead, the building would appear as one large, monolithic block of institutional appearance."

6.2.24 The proposal, again is considered to overcome this concern, with each roof of the new build having different heights, the design and different coloured render.

Conclusion 6.2.25 Overall, in terms of the massing, scale and form of the proposal it is considered the proposal is acceptable and overcome the previous concerns of a more uniformed appearance, with differing roof ridges, eaves levels, fenestration and overall design approaches and built forms. The proposal would be a continuation/addition of the existing diversity of architectural styles found along North Quay and within the Conservation Area and ensure the character and

==== PAGE 27 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  27  of  28

quality of North Quay is retained. The proposed approach would also meet the aims of Urban Environment Proposal 3 as the development would make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness with a contemporary approach and the context of the surrounding area. Therefore complying with GP2 (b, c &g), EP 32, 35 & 42 of the IOMSP.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1.1 As outlined in this report the main issue to the potential impact upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area/street scene and Registered Building. In relation to these matters it is considered the proposals would preserve and be an enhancement overall to the Conservation Area/street scene and would not detrimentally affect the Registered Buildings (Newson's warehouse) character as a building of special architectural and historic interest. The loss of part of the Registered Building (Nr 28) weighs against the application; however, the overall benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of Nr 28. The proposals would therefore comply with Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32, 35, 42 & 43 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and Urban Environment Proposal 3 & 4 of the Area Plan for the East.

7.1.2 All other matters outlined in this report are considered acceptable.

7.1.3 In conclusion the proposal complies with the relevant planning polices and other material planning matters. Accordingly, for these reasons it is recommended the application is approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated

8.2 In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.9.5 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 the Right to Appeal. __

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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 13.10.2025

Signed : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.

==== PAGE 28 ====

                                                 25/00788/CON                                     Page  28  of  28

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.10.2025

Application No. : 25/00788/CON Applicant : Kelman Ltd Proposal : Registered Building Consent for the conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse - RB289 (in association with 25/90789/GB) Site Address : 27-28 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE

Presenting Officer : Chris Balmer

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

13.10.2024 - Planning Committee approved the application subject to amending the following conditions;

C2. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the structural works and repairs to the existing fabric to Number 27, including a construction methodology and timescale (and the retention of Number 28 until such time as structural works are completed on Number 27), shall be submitted to and approved by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the special architectural and special historic interest of Number 27 North Quay is protected and preserved.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, or refurbishment works to the existing building, details of cladding, window frames, external doors/frames, roof finishes (including the retention of existing undamaged slates), curtain walling, balustrading and outdoor raised decking/ramps/stairs i.e. all external finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the external finish has been applied in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained thereafter

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

C 4. Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, or refurbishment works to the existing building (Nr 27), details of the windows and doors in Number 27 North Quay (to include timber sliding sash units at ground floor level) at a scale of 1:20 are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter, the windows and doors are to be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and fabric of the registered building. __