Officer Planning Report

1. There is no reason why the new building should not be convenient for disabled people, including unassisted wheelchair users. 23. We do not as yet have written representations from the S. of T., but I would expect these to include comment on the following matters:- (a) traffic generation; (b) means of access and access, for cars and for service vehicles; (c) parking provision; and (d) the impact on harbour operations. 24. It would also be useful if there were advice on the progress of the proposed land exchange. 25. There is in the submitted application a copy of a letter from the Chief Fire Officer commenting on the compartmentalisation and the use of sprinkler systems. It would be useful to receive confirmation from the Fire Safety Dept. as to its requirements and recommendations, and confirmation from the architect that these can be accommodated. 26. It appears to me that consideration should also be given to two other matters as follows: (a) Planning Gain Two aspects of the proposal may be judged to constitute "planning gain": (i) the use of the covered atrium as a venue for music, exhibitions, or other civic events; and (ii) the introduction of a prestigious, "landmark" building to an important "gateway" site which is, and has been for several years, of poor appearance. (b) Over-investment The Dept. has for many years exercised a policy of using so directing commercial investment in new buildings as to secure the investment for the refurbishment or replacement of aged term centre buildings in need of such treatment. The extent of this investment is clearly finite. It thus becomes legitimate to avoid resist "over-invest- ment" in one site, since there is a dense queue other sites may thereby be effectively deprived of investment. In practice, it is of course difficult to judge that constitutes "over-investment", and there arises the possibility of losing any investment at all if the proposal is not commercially attractive. Recommendations 27. There should be a hearing convened under the terms of the Schedule to the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Douglas 2000 Area) Order 1994. This has been provisionally arranged for the 5th of May. 28. It is important that there should be to hand prior to that date some written representations from the S.O.T., the Douglas Corporation, and the Fire Safety Dept. I have written to each of these accordingly. In the absence of these representations, it is not proposed and difficult to make a firm recommendation, but, on the basis that the proposed arrangements for access, egress, parking, ~~car~~ drainage, and fire-fighting are satisfactory, or could be refused such as to be so, it may assist the Committee if I summarize firstly those considerations which may be judged ~~unable~~ to ~~negative,~~ and secondly those which may be judged positive. 29. On the negative, or adverse, side are the following considerations:- (a) In ~~case~~ dismissing the Appeal in respect of P.A. 97/70, the Minister effectively endorsed the Inspector's conclusions, which, at paragraphs 30, 31, 33, and 34 expressed concerns about height, ~~which~~ the suspect oppressive appearance, and dominant impact, albeit in respect of a different building (but one which would have been about 26 m high rather than 28 m as now proposed). (b) The proposed building would be taller than is advocated by the Local Plan Written statement. (c) Whilst assessment of architectural style is a subjective matter, the use of a modern style, especially for such a large building on such a site which is so easily viewed, may be judged inappropriate. (d) The provision of so much office floor space on this site may make it less likely that other sites are developed (or completed e.g. The Villiers site) conversely. (e) On the positive side are the following considerations: (a) The site is underused, and of poor appearance, and within the Town Centre; its redevelopment would accord with our general policy of encouraging "brownfield" dev't. (b) The availability of the atrium for cultural or social purposes would be of public benefit. (c) A prestigious building of high quality, whatever its size and style, would have some aesthetic merit and would inspire confidence in the future. 31. The Committee is invited to assess and weigh these considerations after inspecting the submitted application and receiving oral representations at the hearing on the 5th of May. B.J. Sunders Lev't Control Officer 13.4.2000