33084

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal : 14/01099/B MOP Holdings Ltd Alterations and erection of a two storey roof extension to office building Exchange House 54 - 62 Athol Street Douglas Isle Of Man IMl IJD Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Edmond Riley 05.11.2014 05.11.2014 Planning Committee Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE The application site is the curtilage of Exchange House, 54 - 62 Athol Street, Douglas. The building abuts the pavement and is five storeys tall, The top floor is set back from the fagade and has an angled front wall that reduces its prominence a little, although its different colour (white against the brown brick) is such as to make it hardly invisible. 1.1 Set within the Athol StreetA'ictoria Street Conservation Area, the building has recently undergone renovation works at its ground floor to unify and thereby improve the appearance of its frontage. Athol Street is itself currently undergoing renovation works via the laying of new pavements. 1.2 Athol Street offers a strong building line, with most buildings fronting directly or almost directly onto the pavement alongside. The streetscene has some unifying features, with the key one perhaps being the height and massing of the buildings, but render finishing and simple matters such as rhythms of windows, railings, stepped accesses to the buildings and arch-headed doors are also present to varying degrees. Athol Street is perhaps the Island's centre for office accommodation and its architecture is very much defined by its lean towards Victorian and Georgian design, although it would be difficult to argue there was a dear architectural vernacular, 1.3 Roughly two-thirds of Athol Street to the north between Upper Church Street (to the east) and St George's Street (to the west) offers the most complete uniformity, with perhaps a dozen properties coming together to form a handsome terrace offering many of the features described above, and also all In a good state of repair. Aside from some unfortunate dormer windows (one in particular at the southwesternmost end) of this terrace. It is otherwise fairly unaltered since its original construction. Exchange House sits adjacent to these and is distinct from this terrace because of its later design (it was built in the mid-1970s), along with 1.4 14/01099/B Page 1 of 11

==== PAGE 2 ====

different floor levels, brick finishing and greater massing (its top storey is almost a full floor rather than just a dormer). It is also true that this end of Athol Street is the area where the most recent change hasoccurred, with development of the last 40 years almost predominant where Athol Street meets Lord Street, and with other simiiarfy-aged buildings found in the area. Even then, the character of Athol Street very much carries through its entirety and, even with the highest concentration of contemporary elements found at the Lord Street-end, the fact that the pedestrian access to the Victorian Douglas train station terminates the Athol Street vista serves to further highlight the point. 1.5 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension atop Exchange House. This extension would be set back 2.5m from the frontage for two thirds of the building's width (just over 25m) and set back 7.4m for the remaining third Qust under 13m); there would also be a roof terrace set to the front of the deeper setback. 2.1 The extension would be constructed almost completely of glass and offer roughly 900sqm of additional office floorspace, Some use of grey cladding is shown in the walls, while the anthracite roof would have an inverse pitch but be almost flat in profile. The front elevation of Exchange House would appear to be proposed to be rendered white on the basis of the photomontage information (and on the basis of discussion between the applicants and officers) but this is not specifically outlined on the amended plans. The amended scheme shows a 'brise soleil' roughly halfway up the front elevation of the proposed extension in an effort to reduce the effects of passive solar gain. The application is supported by photomontages of the proposed extension from Athol Street and also to the rear from Upper Church Street, as well as a Planning Statement. 2.2 2.3 The existing building currently sits 14.5m above street level; this would increase by 7.3m to 21.8m under the proposal. No internal alterations are proposed to the existing building, although the Planning Statement does advise that there is the possibility to convert some of the underground car- parking spaces for bicycle parking. 2.4 Amended plans as well as additional photomontages were submitted on 30th December 2014 and the application was duly re-advertised for the statutory 21 day period. 2.5 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY Although the site has been the subject of several previous applications, it is not considered that any of these are specifically material to the determination of the current application. It is worth noting that approval was granted for the change of use of part of the ground floor to a coffee shop under PA 12/00731/C. 3.1 4.0 PLANNING POLICY The site lies within an area zoned as "predominantly offices" on the Douglas Local Plan; no adopted Written Statement accompanies the Local Plan. 4.1 In terms of the Strategic Plan, then, a number of policies, alongside supporting text, 4.2 are relevant. Page 2 of 11 14/01099/B

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states, in part, that: "Development should make the best use of resources by...optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials." Strategic Policy 2 states in part: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages." 4.4 Strategic Policy 3 states in part: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by...having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character." 4,5 Strategic Policy 5 states as follows: "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." 4,6 4.7 Strategic Policy 6 reads; "Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans." Although there is no definition of what threshold a proposal would need to exceed to be classified as a "major employment-generating development", it would be inappropriate to ignore this Strategic Policy. 4.8 Strategic Policy 9 is also relevant in part: "...all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park 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." Spatial Policy 1 states: 'The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island." 4.9 General Policy 2 states, in part, that: "Development which is in accordance with the 4.10 land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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." 4.11 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Consen/ation 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." 4.12 Environment Policy 42 states in part: "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." 14/01099/B Page 3 of 11

==== PAGE 4 ====

4.13 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." 4.14 Business Policy 7 reads, in part: "New office floor space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan." Business Policy 8 is important to note: "New office buildings should, in terms of height 4.15 and mass, respect the scale and character of adjoining and nearby buildings and should accommodate parking space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 7 of the Plan." 4.16 Transport Policy 7 further reinforces the parking standard issue: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." For office use, that standard is 1 parking space for every 50 square metres of nett floor space, although those standards can be relaxed where development: (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area; or (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. Energy Policy 5 states in part: 'The Department will prepare a Planning Policy 4.17 Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than...100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment." As noted, other text that is not within a policy but is nevertheless within the Strategic 4.18 Plan is relevant. The Economic Progress Aim reads: 'To pursue manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy." 4.19 The four Strategic Economic Objectives read as follows: "(a) To maintain and improve the viability, vitality and diversity of the economy by enabling improved employment opportunities. "(b) To ensure that sufficient land and property in terms of location, size and type is available for employment purposes. "(c) To safeguard and provide for the needs of existing and new location-dependent businesses. "(d) To maintain and enhance the viability and vitality of town centres by controlling the location and nature of new retail and commercial development." 4.20 The Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2007) for Athol Street/Victoria Street contains a number of useful paragraphs. 4.21 "4.5 Athol Street lies between St George's churchyard and the steep bluff that was Shaw’s Brow. It was laid out by John Taggart, surveyor and architect (1778-1836), and developed piecemeal from 1810 onwards... By the late 1860s it had become largely developed, with a predominance of town houses, mostly 3 storeys high and 3 windows wide with plain rendered frontages and elegant front doors. Early photographs show that, despite many variations in decoration and detail, the street architecture was consistent, with a late 14/01099/B Page 4 of 11

==== PAGE 5 ====

Georgian feel and more or less continuous cornice lines. Despite many changes, it is this character which has survived to the present day." 4.22 "4.8 More than half the Athol Street frontages are the late Georgian or early Victorian originals, in varying states of preservation." 4.23 "4,9 The centre section of the street is characterised by more decorative treatments of the rendered stonework. On Nos 36-42, the hood mouldings over windows have a distinctly neo gothic character. As the century progressed, frontages became less restrained, with freer groupings of windows more characteristic of Victorian professional chambers than of town houses, as exemplified by No 23. Further down the street, the 2 storey high pediment, tall windows and rusticated base of No 35 is a dignified feature, rather at odds with the featureless office blocks beside it." "4.10 Regrettably, the legacy of middle and late 20th Century redevelopment has not 4.24 been distinguished. Traditional plot widths have been ignored, as have the finer details of fenestration. Featureless brick has been substituted for decorative render, and the desire to cram in another upper floor has resulted in some clumsy penthouses and dormers. However, in general the cornice line has been maintained, and there are several recent introductions which respect their neighbours and provide individuality and interest. Notable among these is the group extending from No 43 to the Lord Street corner. There is one extensive fagade in a confident commercial classical style and, by contrast, two richly detailed examples of fine pressed brickwork, reflecting the detail of the Railway Station Archway and Clock which terminate the vista at the end of the street." 4.25 In the section headed'Opportunities', the following text is helpful: "8.1 In the last thirty years, redevelopment sites have tended to exceed the established plot widths, and consequently new buildings have appeared to be clumsy or bland intrusions. The pressure to maximise plot ratios has resulted in some regrettable squeezing in of extra floors. Dormers and penthouses are all too evident on the skyline, generally failing to conceal the extra space." 4.26 "8.2 Traditional Victorian detailing is usually full of interest. Modern versions tend to be thinly detailed and lacking finesse. The idea of progressive reductions in storey height above 1st floor and the varying of window groupings within an overall pattern is rarely achieved." 4.27 It is also worth noting that the emerging Central Douglas Masterplan, while not adopted and not part of the Development Plan (and nor will it be once adopted), outlines a number of key development sites for new office space; Exchange House is not one such site. 5.0 REPRESENTAHONS AND CONSULTATIONS Douglas Borough Council, in correspondence date-stamped as having been received 7th October 2014, offer no objection to the application. Following submission of the amended plans, the Council reiterated this position in correspondence received on both 15th January 2015 and 21st January 2015. 5.1 5.2 Highway Services, in an email dated 6th October 2014, do not oppose the application. Following submission of the amended plans, no further correspondence was received. Given the nature of the proposal, the Department of Economic Development (DED) were contacted for their views. They support the application. In a letter date-stamped as having been received 31st October 2014, they accept that, "there is not necessarily a shortage of office accommodation in the central Douglas area per se, but office 5.3 14/01099/B Page 5 of 11

==== PAGE 6 ====

accommodation of premium quaiity and in the most sought after locations is not as readily available, nor does the available accommodation necessarily offer the specifications desired by some modern businesses." They continue: "Many e-businesses are placing or considering placing their global HQ in the Isle of Man. Very high profit to employee ratios typically accompanies such a location and the potential exchequer benefit is highly attractive to Government. 'The property demands of these businesses include high-quality office premises, both in terms of look and feel; a prestigious and convenient location and a state of the art and efficient technical infrastructure, "Some established businesses have struggled to find suitable quality accommodation and ignored existing premises to develop their own new buildings. Microgaming and Celton Manx have both done this in the recent past. "The proposal to develop new high quality office accommodation within a weil-established and key business district would result in the provision of a new supply of the type of modern, high quality accommodation which is flexible and adaptable to the individual tenant's requirements and their technical demands, This target sector requires office space that is different to the bulk of what is available in Douglas, and specifically Athol Street. "The Department feels that it is vital to make the Island's "offer" as good as possible and supports the private investment and development of new or renovated business premises which will add to the choice and options available to new or expanding businesses. The willingness of private investors to invest in new business property may also encourage others to improve their own properties and result in a genera! improvement of the business property stock." Following submission of the amended plans, no further correspondence was received, although officers DED have been involved in meetings with the applicants and planning officers since the application's registration. 6.0 ASSESSMENT The application site's being within an area zoned for office use is such that the principle of an extension to provide additional office space is acceptable. Such a presumption is set out in those policies of the Strategic Plan seeking to ensure new development takes place within sustainable • and generally town-centre - locations. The key issues to take account of in assessing the detail of the proposal, then, are whether or not sufficient parking is provided and whether or not the design is acceptable. Particular regard will be had to Environment Policy, Environment Policy 42, Business Policy 7, Business Policy 8 and Transport Policy 7 in coming to a view on these two issues. 6.1 It is noted that no Energy Statement has been provided as required by Energy Policy 5, although the Department has not generally required the submission of such Statements. That being said, the Design Statement does indicate that a variable refrigerant flow heating & cooling system, along with solar panels, high levels of thermal insulation and reactive lighting systems would all be installed, as would low-water use sanitary fittings and the brise soieil mentioned earlier. These are all very welcome from an environmental sustainability point of view. 6.2 14/01099/B Page 6 of 11

==== PAGE 7 ====

Parking and highway safety In the first instance, it is noted that that Highway Services have not objected to the proposal, although they have not detailed this lack of objection. While no additional parking is to be provided, and the Strategic Ran policy requirement would be for roughly 18 new spaces, it is noted that the site is in one of the more sustainable locations on the Island. There is good access to public transport here on both Lord Street (on which the bus station is located) and also Prospect Hill at the other end of Athol Street; also, the site's location within the main population centre of the Island is such as to reasonably conclude that a good proportion of workers would be in a position to walk or cycle to work. 6.3 It is also noted and welcomed - although not subject to planning control - that the applicant intends to provide some cycle storage facilities within the existing basement parking area, 6.4 6.5 It is therefore considered that to object to the application purely on parking grounds, despite the application's shortfall of parking spaces, would be unsustainable. It is also considered that the application would have no other obvious highway safety issues as no new vehicular or pedestrian accesses are proposed. Design This is perhaps the key assessment point, and it is here where the application founders. While, as noted, the principle for new office space here is acceptable, and the intention to provide contemporary office space with strong environmental sustainability criteria is most welcome, the overall acceptability of the proposal turns on its detail. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, it is helpful that the agent has provided a number of photomontages and wide street elevations to give a better indication of the proposal's visual impact and also to enable a better understanding of the context of the built environment here relative to the application site itself, The impact of the proposal is assessed first from long­ distance, then from Hope Stree^Upper George Street to the rear, and finally from Athol Street itself. 6.6 From further afield, the site is perhaps surprisingly well-concealed. Views into the area from Douglas Head, for example, give the impression of a fairly varied townscape of different building forms, ages and materials, and the addition of two storeys of glass into this setting would, from such a distance, probably be almost unnoticeable. 6.7 6.8 From the rear, the views are less limited: the topography rises away from the site and, with the St George's Church set in fairly open grounds behind, views of the roofline are fairly strong. That being said, even during early winter when the site visit was undertaken, the tree coverage does mask the roofline to a noticeable degree when the site is viewed from Upper Church Street, However, when within the grounds of St Georges Church, the site is far more readable visible and identifiable, and feels rather closer than perhaps it is - in interesting contrast to views of the site from Upper Church Street, where the site feels further away than it perhaps is. The rear of the terrace here is fairly haphazard and could not in any way be said to match the grandeur offered by its Athol Street frontage. That being said, there is a clear roofline generated by this terrace and, even if its rear elevation leaves much to be desired in terms of its state of repair, it is considered that this roofline is important in providing the townscape setting for St Georges Church, With this in mind, any harm to that setting would be unfortunate. 6.9 A photomontage of the site taken from Upper Church Street, with trees in full leaf, does show that the glass and cladding of the extension as being visible and would extend above the roofline to quite an unfortunate degree. St George's church is not Registered, but 14/01099/B Page 7 of 11

==== PAGE 8 ====

it is an important town centre building, and its setting would be detrimentally affected by the proposed significant increase in roof height above the existing roofline (and, it must be noted, above a roofline that is so consistent at this part of Athol Street, and which the application site already sits uncomfortably against). Of more - and probably crucial - importance, however, is the impact of the building 6.10 from the point of view of Athol Street itself. In the first instance, it is worth noting one particular line from the Athol Street/Victoria Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal, which is considered to apply directly to the application site and its neighbours; "Featureless brick has been substituted for decorative render, and the desire to cram in another upper floor has resulted in some clumsy penthouses and dormers". Any development that would result in buildings of greater visual impact by further exacerbating this existing poor situation is therefore to be resisted as such an approach could not be said to preserve, let alone enhance, the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 6.11 Photomontages of the view looking northeast have been provided and they demonstrate unequivocally that the two storey extension would be wholly inappropriate and out of keeping for the streetscene. The long streetscene elevation is also clear in this regard. While it is accepted that the elevation shown is artificial given the extent of built form to the south of Athol Street, it still strongly indicates that the proposed 50% increase in height of the building would be desperately incongruous as a result. The photomontage supports this conclusion in that it provides a more realistic view of the streetscene as viewed by pedestrians, and is clear that the proposed extension would tower above the vast majority of the existing built forms and fundamentally - and detrimentally - damage the streetscene as a result. 6.12 The long elevation also demonstrates powerfully the damage done to the streetscene by the failure of more modern additions to respect the plot widths of the first buildings constructed here. The mass of Exchange House, alongside the adjacent Derby House, appears bulbous and domineering over these buildings' more mature, Victorian-styled neighbours, and the imposition of yet more mass onto this existing poor situation would completely unbalance the streetscene. It is to be remembered that even with the somewhat inappropriate later additions to this end of Athol Street, the cornice line is maintained almost entirely along this particular block (and has been identified as a particular characteristic of the streetscene in the Character Appraisal) and its loss in the manner proposed should be resisted. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area, contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, and should be refused as a result. 6.13 Exchange House offers a fairly bland and utilitarian mass on a very wide plot, In not reflecting its context, it could be said to represent a fairly archetypal modernist approach to a built form. In this sense, to add to its already considerable prominence would be to its detriment. Were the extension in some way architecturally linked - whether by use of materials, window rhythms, detailing, massing or any other typical method of tying in new development with existing development - to Exchange House, it is possible that there could at least be an understanding of the approach taken by the proposal, However, the glazing and steei approach makes almost no effort to respect or reflect its immediate context (Exchange House) or its wider context (Athol Street), The proposed rendering of Exchange House is welcomed as this would at least bring the cladding material into some form of uniformity with the streetscene. However, this is not sufficient to outweigh the concerns in respect of the issue of the massing. 6.14 The Planning Statement is sadly lacking in explanatory detail in respect of the evolution of the design proposed. Although some effort has been made to integrate the colouration of the side elevation with neighbouring buildings, the Statement is clear that, 'The Page 8 of 11 14/01099/B

==== PAGE 9 ====

side elevations are generally only viewable in passing at street level", so this effort is not fully understood. The use of glass does reduce the visual impact of the proposed extension compared to a more solid building material, but the use of glass in this way is considered to be objectionable. 6,15 While glass, which offers a clean visual impression, can be used successfully in integrating new buildings with old, it is generally only when the glass is restrained in extent and used as a transition, or visual 'break’, that such an approach will be successful. An almost fully-glazed extension of the kind proposed here would go far beyond any such 'restraint' and, as such, could not be said to respect the site in terms of its scale, form or design. Consequently, the extension would adversely affect the character of Exchange House itself by increasing its visual impact in a negative fashion, as well as adversely affecting the surrounding townscape. On this basis, it is considered that the application should be refused on the basis of its failure to comply with the provisions of parts 'b', 'c' and 'g' of General Policy 2, Business Policy 8 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. 6.16 These design concerns must be balanced against the positives of the scheme, which, in terms of the provision of contemporary and high-quality office space with strong environmentaiiy-fhendly credentials, are somewhat clear (albeit that there is limited information in respect of how the internal arrangement of the office space would be laid out). 6.17 The positive support from the Department of Economic Development should not be summarily dismissed, However, this support must be balanced against the fact that the proposal is speculative: no specified end-user has been identified and as such there is no way to know if what is proposed is exactly what the market demands. It is noted that the approval at 62 Circular Road late last year was for a specific client and reflected their specific needs. It was also a fairly contemporary approach to office development and would provide the contemporary office space required of that client; the same cannot be said of the current proposal given the above. 6.18 While the Planning Statement is clear that the applicant has been approached by a number of (specific, named) companies seeking open place office space, these are all current tenants of Exchange House. In addition, the Planning Statement is clear that several other, unnamed companies have approached the applicant "in relation to a space requirement similar to what we are offering in this application". However, all of this seems to indicate that the proposal derives from the over-trading of Exchange House - which is, of course, good news - rather than a specific response to an identified need for the kind of office space proposed here, In the absence of any marketing information or details from estate agents in respect of the kind of office space for which enquiries are commonly made, the need for such office space as proposed here remains poorly-defined and to set aside the provisions of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 would be premature (in advance of that need being identified) and inappropriate. 6.19 However, the above three paragraphs aside - which have delved into hypothesis to a degree - even were there a specific end-user who had identified this site and the design proposed, it is still considered that the failure of the proposal to in any way reflect its surroundings as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, and taking account of the very strict wording of Environment Policy 35, is such that the application would almost certainly still be unacceptable. It is perhaps also worth noting that the agent was made fully aware of significant 6.20 officer concerns with respect to the proposed design at the pre-application stage and, aithough some design modifications have been made since that original submission, it is therefore quite disappointing that the application has been submitted in the form it has. 14/01099/B Page 9 of 11

==== PAGE 10 ====

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION It is concluded that the application's harmful effect on the application site and relative to its surroundings far outweigh the speculative benefit that might arise from the proposal's implementation and should be refused as a result. 7.1 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: 8,2 • The Department of Economic Development Page 10 of 11 14/01099/B

==== PAGE 11 ====

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals Rl. By virtue of its mass and height relative to the otherwise almost uniform height of the terrace within which it sits, the proposed extension fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. R 2, The proposed extension fails to respect or reflect upon the architectural style of Exchange House. As such, the extension would adversely affect the character of Exchange House itself as well as, by consequence, the surrounding townscape. The application is therefore contrary to the provisions of parts 'b’, 'c' and 'g' of General Policy 2, Business Policy 8 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :.. Signed :... Presenting Officer • A, Further to the decision of the Committee an additionai report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate 14/01099/B Page 11 of 11