Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of 'Conister House', 16-18 Finch Road in Douglas an existing two storey former dwelling converted into offices. 16-18 Finch Road is on the Protected Buildings Register as RB 98 and RB 99. To the west of the application site is the public highway of Finch Road and to the north is No.20 Finch Road. To the south is No.12-24 Finch Road. The application site is not within a Conservation Area.
The application is proposing to renovate and extend the existing office building and construct a new car park to replace the existing at the rear of the building.
It is proposed to erect a four storey extension to the rear of the property. The basement and lower ground floors would project 29.5 m to the rear and would be 16.2 m in width. The ground floor would project 25.1 m to the rear and be 15.2 m wide. A roof terrace would be accessed from the ground floor. The first floor would project 20.2 m to the rear and would be 13.9 m wide. A 13.9 m roof terrace would be accessed from the first floor.
The lift shaft would project above the four storey extension. It is proposed to create a lobby at second floor level to allow access to the flat roof of the extension. The lift shaft and lobby would project 2.1 m to the rear and be 5 m wide.
A two and a half storey side extension would be built to replace an existing flat roof extension. The extension would project 2.9 m to the side and would be 13.2 m long. The height of the extension would be 8.3 m to the join of the mono pitch roof with the existing building, when measured from the street level of Finch Road, or 10.3 m when measured from the floor level of the lower ground floor level.
A new chimney stack would be constructed on the south elevation of the building. Lightwells and railings are to be reinstated on the front elevation of No. 18 Finch Road. A new disabled access ramp would be constructed on the front elevation of No. 16 Finch Road. The ramp would be 8 m long and 1.15 m wide. The gradient of the ramp would be 1: 12.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2 Environment Policy 32 and Transport Policy 7.
Environment Policy 32 states that "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."
Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards"
Within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, the following policy is considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Policy RB/5
Policy RB/5 states "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, 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.
Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.
Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."
Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or whether to grant registered building consent for any works, 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."
The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application: 07/02386/CON - Renovations, erection of extensions and construction of a new car park to replace existing to rear - granted 16th April 2008
07/02385/CON - Renovations, erection of extensions and construction of a new car park to replace existing to rear - granted 16th April 2008
07/02384/GB - Renovations, erection of extensions and construction of a new car park to replace existing to rear - granted 16th April 2008
05/00688/CON - Erection of railings around front of buildings - refused 26th January 2006. 90/4236/B - Replacement of existing windows - refused 87/00103/B - Construction of porch to first floor rear elevation - permitted 86/00136/B - Proposed amalgamation to form office accommodation and associated car parking facilities - permitted
85/1084 - Demolition of rear outlet and installation of new windows in basement area - permitted.
Douglas Corporation and the Highways Division of the Department of Transport have not objected to the application.
The Architectural Liaison Officer of the Isle of Man Constabulary is concerned about the security of the new car park.
Standard comments have been received from the Drainage Division of Douglas Corporation. A resident of Port Soderick has commented that the proposal doesn't exactly enhance the rear elevations of the building, but given that they on the rear it is unlikely to wholly offend Environment Policy 32.
The content of this application has been considered with particular regard to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
These works should be considered in conjunction with the previous applications (07/02384/GB, 07/02385/GB and 07/02386/CON) to create a dual level car park to the rear and internal and external alterations to the Registered Building.
In these proposals, the principal elevation of the Registered Building on to Finch Road remains untouched, save for the addition to the right hand side previously approved under the aforementioned applications and a disabled access ramp. With regard to this latter item, the railings should be so conditioned as to match the remaining railings to the frontage of the property.
The main thrust of the proposals is the addition of office space to the rear. This is proposed in a two storey modern, low lying form which steps away at the rear elevation in order to minimise its impact, and sits on top of the previously approved car parking. The proposals are intended to contrast with the existing building in their use of materials and form, which is predominantly horizontal floor planes and appears to float on glazed walls. The floor planes have a substantial overhang which induces heavy shadows, no doubt to provide sun shielding from direct sunlight.
In my opinion the least successful aspect of the proposals is the link between the recently approved lift extension to the rear of the Registered Building and the office proposals to the rear which is a missed opportunity to differentiate between the old and the new. It may have been considered more appropriate to have elevated this section in a glass box, for instance.
There is substantial recent precedent for such addition to Registered Building's in Douglas in the form of the Crescent Cinema façade retention scheme, the Athol Street Court House façade retention scheme, and the Central Hotel scheme which effectively removed the entire interior of the Registered Building and replaced it with a modern apartment building. This scheme, proposes that the Registered Building is retained in its entirety and additional office flooring is offered up to the rear. Whilst an oblique view can be obtained from Finch Road via the side access, the principal elevation in the Finch Road streetscape will be maintained as will the integrity of the Registered Building. As viewed from the rear, the form of the Registered Building will still be read, if only in outline. Having had consideration to the above, I therefore recommend Approval of this application.
In respect of the overall works, RB/5 of PPS 1/01 states that "applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting." The applicant's agents states that "This application follows approval of PA 07/02384/GB where a more modest extension was proposed. In answer to the Applicant's wish for greater office space to meet current demand we have extended the building via a more modern architectural treatment. The impact upon the integrity of the existing Registered Building is minimal. Furthermore, we have created a series of stepped terraces and green roofs which can be used as garden space. This facility will not just provide an amenity for users of the building; it would be a visual amenity for the buildings all around." It is considered that this short statement in a covering letter does not adequately justify the applicant's proposals for this Registered Building.
The reintroduction of the windows and their associated light wells with surrounding railings would offer natural light to the lower ground floor. There is evidence in 'scarring' in the render and masonry that these features were formerly in place so the reintroduction of them is considered to be acceptable. Their reintroduction also helps 'anchor' the building in the streetscape. This is further enhanced by the reintroduction of the chimneystack to the South Elevation which would provide symmetry and balance to the front façade.
In respect of the proposed disabled ramp, it is accepted that disabled access is an important feature of any building; however, the ramp would be a relatively large addition to the front elevation, which would change the character of the building. Also, the detailing of the ramp on the submitted plans needs to be at a larger scale so to assess whether the railings around the ramp would be acceptable. In its current form it is considered that the ramp would detrimentally affect the character of the building and would cause harm to the visual amenities of the locality.
In respect of the side extension, the proposed extension has previously been granted planning permission and registered building consent early this year, as it was considered it would not adversely affect the character of the building. The same can be said within this application. It is considered the proposed side extension would not adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality.
The proposed rear extension is arguably the most contentious part of this application. The recent planning permission proposed an extension which projected 4.6 m to the rear and 12.8 m in width along with additional car parking to the rear which, while of two storeys was to be achieved by excavating the existing ground level. The overall impact on the rear of the Registered Buildings was considered to be no greater than the current car park and was considered to be acceptable.
This proposal would be a substantial modern addition to the building. It is considered that the proposal is of significant scale when compared with the existing building and does not attempt to follow that building's character. Rather, it proposes a form of development that would contrast, rather than accord with the existing. As identified in the comments of the Senior Conservation Officer, the proposed extension would obscure much of the rear façade. Aside from the question of whether a modern, contrasting approach to the design of the extension is appropriate, it is considered that the interface between the original and new built forms must be handled carefully and proposals that obscure much of the original rear elevation should be resisted. Adopted policy is clear that the applicant is expected to justify proposals for extensions to registered buildings. The importance of this cannot be over estimated when the nature of the proposal is both significant in scale and of a deliberately contrasting design. There is nothing in the applicant's submission to indicate that the required level of care has been taken in the design of the proposals and (just as importantly) in the manner in which they would be executed. There is also not the level of justification for the chosen approach and for the scale of the proposals to support the proposal. On the basis of the information submitted, it is considered that the proposal has not been handled sensitively and would certainly detract from the character of the Registered Building.
In respect of the parking provision, the application site is proposing to provide a total of 1123 square metres of net office space (existing and proposed). The total provision for a development of this size based on the 1 space per 50 square metres standard would equate to 22 car parking space. The application is proposing to provide 38 spaces, which is a surplus of 16 car parking spaces. It is considered the proposal provides satisfactory level of car parking.
The application is proposing a controlled stop/go traffic light system for the side elevation of the Registered Building; however, the application does not provide details of this system. It is has not been possible to assess what impact this system would have on the character of the building. It would be premature to grant approval for this system without knowing this detail.
It is recommended that the applications be refused for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Douglas Corporation Highways Division of the Department of Transport Architectural Liaison Officer of the Isle of Man Constabulary Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status: Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
C 1. The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in that, taking into account the combined effect of the scale and design of the proposals and in particular the proposed interface between the proposed rear extension and the registered building, the proposed rear extension and front disabled ramp would adversely affect the character of a Registered Building. Insufficient justification has been submitted to support the proposed development, as required by RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Signed : Reporting Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown