44902

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  1  of  23

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. 20/00679/B Applicant : Duke Street Commercial Limited Proposal Erection of mixed use development with ground floor retail units and 20 residential apartments Site Address 42-50 Duke Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2AX

Case Officer :

Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 02.11.2020

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

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

C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the bin stores has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the storage of bins associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure sufficient bin storage is provided and retained for such use.

C 4. No doors within the development shall open outwards into a highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 5. Prior to the occupation of any apartment hereby approved the Cycle Parking for 20 cycles as shown on drawing 17.168.35 shall be completed and retained thereafter.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  2  of  23

Reason: To ensure that sufficient Cycle Parking provision is provided.

C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the ground floor (shown as "retail" on approved plans) shall only be used as a "Shop" use as defined in in Class 1.1, of Schedule 5 of the Order.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within a different Use Class will require further consideration and an application to be made.

C 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, replacement windows/doors, enlargement or other alteration of the building(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and the individual building.

C 8. The stair wells/stairs/landings as shown on drawing s17.168.036(A) and 17.168.037 are to be completed prior to the occupation of any apartment and retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: to ensure adequate accessibility is provide for cycles to and from the basement level.

C 9. Prior to the occupation of any apartment a scheme is required to be submitted in writing and approved by the Department which demonstrates how the main entrance of the apartments to the rear (east) of the building is to be lit externally and "design out crime" which could include cctv etc. These approved details shall be undertaken in full prior to the occupation of any apartment.

Reason: to ensure the future occupants of the apartment have a secure and safe environment to live.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is recommended the application is acceptable and complies with the relevant planning policies listed and included within Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, The Modified Draft Area Plan for the East and The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014) and therefore recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for commuted sum payments in lieu of for affordable housing and Open Space provision.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

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

29th June 2020 17.168.020(A) 17.168.021(B) 17.168.022(B) 17.168.027(A) 17.168.028(E) 17.168.029(A) 17.168.032 17.168.033

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  3  of  23

1st September 2020 Planning Design Statement

12th October 2020 17.168.030(E) 17.168.031(C) 17.168.035

21st October 2020 17.168.042(G) 17.168.043(F)

22nd October 2020 17.168.036(A) 17.168.037

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

DOI Housing Division __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:

• IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A S.13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO; AND
• IT WOULD RESULT IN MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site was until recently made up of properties 42-50 Duke Street, Douglas which were a row of three storey traditional terraced properties located on the eastern side of Duke Street, north of Fort Street to the west of Villiers Square and Douglas Promenade beyond. The original terrace has now been demolished which was part of the original planning approval which has now commenced (PA 18/00641/B).

1.2 Previously the properties were used for a number of differing uses, which included a restaurant (former KFC) and retail units at ground floor and first floor (former KFC), and the majority of the upper floors were used for storage purposes.

1.3 The main façade and public access of the properties was via Duke Street, while the rear elevation (facing Villiers Square) accommodated the servicing of the units for bin storage/deliveries etc. The site is accessed via vehicular traffic via a roadway (one way) which runs from Regent Street to Fort Street/Victoria Street.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a mixed use development with ground floor retail units and 20 residential apartments. The design, size, height, and siting of the proposal is very similar, to what was approved previously (PA 18/00641/B), the main differences being the first floor now is proposed to have residential apartments (rather than retail) and there is no basement parking (or any parking associated with the development).

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  4  of  23

2.2 For information the previous approval (18/00641/B) was for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six storey mixed use building to provide retail (Class 1) and eleven residential units with basement parking.

2.2 The retail uses would be accommodated at the ground floor of the building, while the apartments would be located at first, second, third, fourth, fifth with a roof garden at the roof level. A basement is proposed which accommodates individual secure storage for each apartment and cycle provision. A pedestrian lift and a staircase provide access to the basement area and throughout the building.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a number of previous planning applications associated with the site; however, only the following is considered relevant in the determination of this application:

3.2 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six storey mixed use building to provide retail (Class 1) and eleven residential units - 18/00641/B - APPROVED at Appeal.

4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS 4.1 Material Considerations

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 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are: o The Douglas Local Plan Order - Maps only (1998); and o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

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

4.1.4 In light of (d) above, the following are of particular importance: o The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014); and o The Modified Draft Area Plan for the East - This may have been approved by Tynwald by the time the Planning Committee determines the application; albeit not yet in force (1st December 2020);

4.1.5 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.4 and 4.5 below.

4.1.6 The following documents are also considered to be relevant:

o The Draft Planning Policy Statement on the Economy (2012); o The Douglas Local Plan Written statement (1998 - not adopted) o IOM Programme for Government 2016 - 2021; and o Manual for Manx Roads.

4.1.7 All the documents are available on the government website.

4.2 The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 4.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Shopping Use - Town Centre" by the Douglas Local Plan. The Site is not within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  5  of  23

4.2.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. However, the site immediate adjoins two Conservation Areas, Douglas Promenade to the east and Victoria Street to the south of the site.

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."

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

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  6  of  23

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 6 states: "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."

4.3.11 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."

4.3.12 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"

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

4.3.14 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."

4.3.15 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 7 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  7  of  23

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

4.3.16 Environment Policy 36 states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."

4.3.17 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."

4.3.18 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."

4.3.19 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."

4.3.20 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."

4.3.21 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."

4.3.22 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."

4.3.23 Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1)."

4.3.24 Business Policy 10 states: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."

4.3.25 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 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."

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  8  of  23

4.3.26 Recreation Policy 4 states: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."

4.3.27 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".

4.3.28 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."

4.3.29 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."

4.3.30 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."

4.4 The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014) 4.4.1 The Masterplan is not a statutory document in itself, although it was approved by Tynwald. It was intended that it would be a material consideration in the determination of applications and be reviewed for inclusion in the Area Plan for the East. The Masterplan introduced a series of Character Areas that reflected the existing nature and uses of particular areas of Douglas town centre while identifying opportunities for growth and evolution. These Character Areas remain relevant and have been used as a basis for the Area Plan Proposals.

4.4.2 The Site is within an area known as "Strand Street" under the plan. Project Proposals for the site include:

"SS2 - Significant new retail & residential development on Villiers Square & 'AXA' site and creation of new public space This development looks at Villiers Square, Strand Street frontage & AXA site to create a development site and re-provide the public space elsewhere. The Villiers Square space is currently not functioning and further public space provision within the tight confines of Strand Street is difficult. The site offers opportunity to create a larger unit/ units to support the intensification of the high street through the removal of no. 23 -50 Duke Street. Figure 7 sets out an indicative scheme for this site."

4.5 The Modified Draft Area Plan for the East 4.5.1 The site is within a Mixed Use area under the draft plan and specifically within Proposed Comprehensive Treatment Areas 1 (Villiers) which includes this site and all sites and existing buildings around Villiers Square. It states:

"Comprehensive Treatment Area 1 - The Villiers (area is shown on Map 5) Despite planning approval for a variety of uses having been granted, much of the site remains undeveloped and has done for some time. The site has a negative effect on this prominent area of Douglas and impacts on the appearance of the Promenade as a whole.

The area fronting the Promenade should either be developed or its appearance improved by creating an attractive public space. Re-development of the wider area would not be discounted, although where existing buildings are attractive and have a sound fabric, they should be incorporated into any wider scheme. The Central Douglas Master Plan suggests there is opportunity to support the intensification of the high street through the removal of some buildings on Duke Street."

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  9  of  23

4.5.2 CTA Proposal 1 (Treatment Plan) states: "Development of this area shall include office, leisure, retail, hotel, residential, entertainment venues, food and drink uses and public open space or a combination thereof; or the laying out of the site as public open space/town square in its entirety. Should built development not be brought forward independently of Government intervention, then consideration will be given to compulsory purchase of the site for either of the options described above."

4.5.3 Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 3 states: " There will be a presumption in favour of retail, and ancillary town centre uses such as food and drink and health and beauty uses along the primary shopping frontage. Outside of the primary shopping frontage a wider variety of town centre uses including financial and professional services open to visiting members of the public will also be acceptable. Entertainment venues, Offices and residential use will be acceptable at first floor level and above, but not at ground floor level where an active frontage should be maintained and enhanced. These active frontages are essential to sustain an attractive town centre."

4.5.4 Urban Environment Proposal 1 states: "The creation of residential units on the upper stories of buildings particularly in Douglas town centre or the subdivision of buildings (particularly in the case of older and underused buildings) for residential use will generally be supported provided proposals do not conflict with other strategic policies or proposals in this plan."

4.5.5 Urban Environment Proposal 2 states: "All new development and regeneration proposals within the Comprehensive Treatment Areas and Douglas Town Centre must demonstrate design elements to provide and enhance areas of public realm through sensitive and context specific design."

4.5.6 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states: "Development proposals, particularly in respect of Douglas Town Centre, which are contemporary in style and which clearly demonstrate innovative design solutions which enhance local character and distinctiveness will generally be supported."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Government Departments 5.1.1 DOI Highways Services made the following comments: 6 October 2020 "The latest revisions are acceptable to Highways on DBC being content with these too. From Highways' viewpoint, the cycle parking is of a suitable form and positioned for accessible and secure usage accommodating two bicycles per stand. The runnel / ramp on the stairway is a welcome addition. Staff bicycle parking for the retail element ideally should be provided within the store, where there is space within or near to the staff room allowing the Villiers Square Parking to remain for use by any visitors.

Accordingly, these revision allow Highways to withdraw their objections and raise no opposition subject to conditions for access, bicycle parking and waste bin storage to accord with Drawing No's: 17/168/30E and 17/168/35."

21 July 2020 "Reference made to planning approval 18/00641/B. It is understood that vehicular access for the proposed additional residential use is to be from Villiers Square as under 18/00641/B. Plans showing this access, car park lift position, car and bicycle parking and arrangements for waste storage and collection as well as general servicing and other ad hoc deliveries are necessary to understand the variation from the consented scheme and the suitability of the additional / changed elements. It maybe that these have not

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  10  of  23

been posted on-line as there is reference to a series of drawings in a listing within the submission. The Applicant should be advised to provide as appropriate. Recommendation: Additional information / revisions."

15 September 2020 "Revision D shows the proposed floor plans without car parking spaces within the basement and provision of a bin store and separate cycle parking. The description should be altered. Additionally, whilst the proposal is situated within an accessible and sustainable location, the absence of car parking does raise some concerns given the quantity of units, size of units and the new build. Without relaxation way from the Strategic Plan car parking standards, there would be a total requirement for 40 car parking spaces based on the minimum of two per unit. Whilst there is the potential for on and off-street car parking nearby, no details are given of its availability which would be, also, on a first come first served basis and payment in the locale should residents require the use of a car. Some indication of availability should be provided, particularly given recent approvals for conversions of offices etc. where relaxations have arisen.

As a further means of assisting sustainable travel, the proposal shows 20 bicycle racks in two locations and separate from the bin store, equivalent to one per unit. The amount and locations are acceptable, but the form comprising vertical racks is unsuitable and these would go unused. Instead, a two-tier with a pump gas spring or parallel 'Sheffield' style stands adequately spaced to accommodate two bicycles per stand should be provided.

The location and size of the bin store are noted and comments on adequacy will be provided by the local authority. Recommendation: Additional information and revisions"

And

"Whilst revision D shows the bin store and cycle parking which is welcomed, details remain missing of the proposed car park layout and access from Villiers Square to the basement level. This information is necessary to fully understand the current scheme. Recommendation: Revisions"

6 October 2020 "The latest revisions are acceptable to Highways on DBC being content with these too. From Highways' viewpoint, the cycle parking is of a suitable form and positioned for accessible and secure usage accommodating two bicycles per stand. The runnel / ramp on the stairway is a welcome addition. Staff bicycle parking for the retail element ideally should be provided within the store, where there is space within or near to the staff room allowing the Villiers Square Parking to remain for use by any visitors.

Accordingly, these revision allow Highways to withdraw their objections and raise no opposition subject to conditions for access, bicycle parking and waste bin storage to accord with Drawing No's: 17/168/30E and 17/168/35."

5.1.2 Public Estates and Housing Division - DOI - make the following comments (21.07.2020); "We refer to the aforementioned application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Douglas indicates that there are 219 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. There are also 25 persons on the active first-time buyers register for Douglas and the East seeking to purchase a first home in the East of the Island. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  11  of  23

In this case, the Department would request that consideration be given by the Planning committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide a Commuted Sum in lieu of Affordable Housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. At present, the Department does not support the sale or letting of apartments to first-time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold, as costs such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them. This does not apply to freehold apartments, only those which are leasehold.

Accordingly, the applicant should contact the Department to discuss and agree the Commuted Sum for 5 Affordable Housing Units.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."

5.1.3 Further comments from the DOI Housing Division stated (26.10.2020): "I can confirm that the Department has agreed that the Commuted Sum can be paid in four equal instalments, and we would suggest the payment process commences with the first instalment of one quarter of the Sum being paid after the sale or occupation of the fifth unit, a further quarter being paid after the tenth unit, a third quarter being paid after the fourteenth unit and the final quarter after the eighteenth apartment is sold or occupied."

5.2 Other Consultees

5.2.1 Douglas Borough Council made the following comments (starting with most recent which raise no objection): 19 October 2020 "The above application was placed before the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 19th October 2020. Following consideration of the application the Committee resolved to not object to the application.

Although not objecting to the development the Council would kindly ask that further consideration be given to how the proposed apartments are accessed from a rear service lane and whether having the entrance at the rear is the safest option and meets the following from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

General Policy 2 (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them. And:

Strategic Objective 3.6 Social (d) To promote community safety and security within new development, regeneration and refurbishment schemes by encouraging the adoption of the principles of "Designing Out Crime"

The Council welcomed the design changes to the bin storage areas and the reduction in the pitch of the stairs along with the inclusion of the bicycle ramp however the Council would kindly ask for further consideration to be given to how the basement storage area is accessed. Concerns were raised about the width of the stairs leading from the rear entrance down to the basement.

It was felt that it may be difficult to manoeuvre a bicycle down the stairs from the rear entrance to the storage area in the basement and that this could potentially impact on the registration of the apartments if the proposed bicycle storage area was impractical to use.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  12  of  23

Although the Council is not objecting to the application it would kindly ask that further consideration is given to the following from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016:

General Policy 2 (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

The Council believes that any issues that could potentially prevent the apartments from becoming registered would be better addressed during the design stage rather than when the development is built should it be approved.

On behalf of the Council I would also like to thank the Planning Office for extending our time period to make comment and consider the application at today's Environmental Services Committee meeting."

23 September 2020 "I wish to reaffirm the Council's request for a time extension to provide comments on the above planning application. A request was made by email to the planning authority on the 11/09/20 asking that matters be brought to the attention of the applicant and for a period of time to be allowed for the applicant to consider making some amendments to the application.

The additional time would allow for the applicant to consider the points we have made in our email and would allow for the Council to review the merits of the application at a meeting of its Environmental Services Committee on the 19th of October.

If the applicant is not minded to provide additional drawings/information relating to the bike and bin storage elements of the development the Council will base its decision upon what has been submitted to date.

Given the changes to the original design with the removal of the basement carpark the Council believes that the lack of on-site parking should be mitigated as much as possible through the provision of cycle storage that is secure, easily accessible, allows for ease of manoeuvrability of bicycles, and which will in turn encourage active travel.

The existing plans do not encourage cycling as an alternative means of transport due to the difficulties envisaged in taking a bicycle from the basement to the rear exit of the property on the ground floor. We do not believe that the lift is large enough for a bicycle to be transported in and it would not be encouraged to transport a possibly muddy/wet bicycle in a communal lift. Transporting bicycles through an internal communal hallway was rejected as an option on a previous application for the same reasons. The applicant would be advised to review this element of the development and provide new information/drawings at their earliest convenience.

The Council is also currently looking at the suitability of the bin storage area and will provide additional information on the suitability of this in due course.

I would kindly ask that if it is not possible to extend the period to make comments until shortly after the 19th October 2020 that you get back to me at your earliest convenience to confirm this.

We want to give the development the best possibility of being successful and believe that this additional time will allow for the applicant to address the matters raised should they wish to.

I look forward to hearing back from you in due course."

15 September 2020

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  13  of  23

"The Council has kindly requested a time extension to consider PA 20/00679/B which has now been uploaded on the planning portal. It our intention to consider the application on the 1th October if we can have confirmation of this it would be much appreciated.

We have taken a look at the most recent set of plans provided in the light of changes made to the provision of parking within the basement of the development. With this in mind we feel that some improvements may need to be made to the bicycle storage provided.

It would appear from the plans that there is not sufficient room within the lift to easily transport a bicycle from the basement to the ground floor. According to information available the internal lift size would be in the region of 1400mm x 1100mm which does not provide adequate space for bicycles to be transported from the basement for use. Given the removal of carpark from the basement it is imperative that everything is done to mitigate this loss by ensuring bicycle storage is provided and that the users of these bike have easy access and manoeuvrability.

It would also be advantageous if the applicant gave consideration to the Manual for Manx Roads when looking at bicycle storage provision for the retail element of the project, Bicycle provision for such a project should be in accordance with the Active Travel for Wales document. With this in mind the applicant may wish to consider providing additional space for 2 members of staff and 2 visitors.

Although the Highways Division have not made comment on the new design I'm sure they will also be looking at how the applicant has mitigated the loss of underground parking.

A possible way to improve the design and make it easier to manoeuvre bicycles from the basement to the rear exit which would then actually fit in with the Government's Active Travel Strategy would be for the developer to consider the stairwell. I have attached some images that the applicant may wish to look at. These are only suggestions and it would be very advisable for the applicant to seek further advice on this matter from those responsible for Active Travel or the DOI's Highways Services Division.

Could you kindly pass on our comments to the applicant for consideration."

11 September 2020 "Within 2000679B APL Correspondence Info.pdf the applicant has requested that the application is considered during September. Council to give consideration to the application at its meeting of the Environmental Services Committee on the 19th October.

It is worth considering that the DOI have requested further information relating to car parking and the Council also needs to consider the impact of the lack of parking provided by the development balanced against the need to improve this part of the town. The cycle provision is welcomed and I do not believe we have any issues of note with the proposed bin storage however we still need to take on board any new comments made by the DOI based upon the updated plans which the Council will need to consider once they have been submitted.

I trust you will allow a time extension for these matters to be dealt with but would kindly ask if this isn't possible that you get back to me at your earliest convenience to let me know."

22 July 2020 "The Council has requested an additional period of time to consider this application. We have also been in contact with the applicant over the lack of detail relating to bicycle storage within the development. The applicant's agent has confirmed that amended plans will be submitted in due course clearly showing the number and position of the bicycle racks."

21st July 2020

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  14  of  23

"The Council had previously supported an application for a similar development on this site but we appreciate that this is a new application without office space which is being replaced with additional apartments.

I note that the planning authority has stated that the application cannot be determined any earlier than the 7th August. I would kindly ask if it may be possible to extend this to allow for the applicant to submit some amended plans clearly showing the number of secure bicycle storage racks provided and the location of these racks.

The Council's Environmental Services Committee will not be meeting during the month of August, its next meeting will take place on the 14th September. It would be better if a development of this nature in the town centre was considered at a full meeting of the Environmental Services Committee and with this in mind I would like to take the application to our meeting in September and provide you with our comments no later than the 18th.

If it is not possible to provide the Council with a time extension may I kindly ask that you get back to me at your earliest convenience."

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Key Issues 6.1.1 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows:

o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, BP1, 9 & 10, SS2 DMP and CTA 1 & MUP 3 TAPE); o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 2& 3); o Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area (EP36); o Affordable housing provision (HP 5); o Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g)); o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (GP2, TP 1, 4, 6 & 7); o Open Space provision (RP3); o Connectivity through the site (CTA1 TAPE & SS2 DMP); and o Other issues.

6.2 Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, BP1, 9 & 10, SS2 DMP and CTA 1 & MUP 3 TAPE): 6.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Shopping Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The proposed scheme is for retail units at ground and first floor levels and 11 residential apartments. It is considered the proposal would comply with the land used designation of the adopted and extant Douglas Local Plan.

6.2.2 It is also noted that the proposed mixed uses would meet the current Draft Area Plan for the East land use designation currently proposed on this site. Whilst some weight can be attached to the draft plan at this stage, it is acknowledged that the "direction of travel" of the draft plan, would be met by the proposal in terms of uses as outline in "Mixed Used Proposal 3". Furthermore, the proposal which includes the residential units at upper levels is supported by Urban Environment Proposal 1, which seeks such development to enable a more active area during evening/night periods.

6.2.3 Again the proposal would fit with the guidelines of the Douglas Master Plan, which itself has been incorporated into the Modified Draft Area Plan for the East.

6.2.4 None of the uses proposed would be contrary to the Local Plan, IOMSP and Draft Area Plan for the East and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable and comply with the relevant IOMSP polices.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  15  of  23

6.3 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (GP2, EP 42 & 43 and UEP 2 & 3) 6.3.1 Arguably this is one of the main issues with the proposal given its significant overall size and prominent location. The separate but related issue of the potential impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area will be dealt with later in this report. This section therefore focuses on the general appearance of the building within the street scenes. It should also be acknowledged that the proposal in terms of size, design, scale, finishes and siting are very similar, if not the same in most parts to what was previously approved.

6.3.2 There are considered to be a number of potential locations where the development would be apparent from public views: o Northern - when walking along Stand Street towards the site; o Eastern - views from Promenade and Villiers Square; o South - Views from Victoria Street; and o West - Views from Duke Street and Wellington Street.

6.3.3 Each of the identified views will be considered in more detail in due course. However, it is important to consider the overall design approach of the proposal. It should be noted that the site is double frontage onto Duke Street elevation and Villiers Square elevation.

Duke Street elevation 6.3.4 The building is six storeys in height but various sections to all elevation are set back at various amounts which help to break up the overall massing of the building. The Duke Street elevation successful introduces old and more contemporary design approaches, with three sections appearing as four storey broadly traditional buildings with vertical style windows, but with a more modern approach. These three sections are then infilled between with more glazed elements in between and above which are also set back at various depths. It is considered this overall design approach is acceptable and in keeping with the various building found in the area which generally range from two to four storeys in height and which have different styles, finishes and overall appearance to each other.

Villiers Square elevation 6.3.5 This elevation continues the same design approach as the Duke Street elevation, albeit its appearance would be of greater mass given there is less emphasis of the set backing approach, albeit there are still sections where this approach is included. The main design of this elevation are three, four and five storey vertical sections, again similar to the traditional design with two sections in-between the three sections which are setback and help break-up this elevation. The main break is a full seven storey (includes lift shaft) thinner vertical fully glazed sections/Glass cladding, which at the six storey level includes a horizontal section (forms an inverted cross shape) which runs along the majority of the sixth floor, and forms accommodation for the penthouse apartment at the six floor. Other buildings surrounding the Villiers Square are again varies in design, scale, mass and size. Generally in terms height they are between three and five storeys in height, varying in more traditional forms i.e. pitch roofs to buildings with greater mass i.e. full five height storey flat roofed buildings i.e. former RBS building. The proposal would likely be the tallest building in the Villiers Square; however, this is not considered an automatic reason to refuse the application. It should be noted the approved extension of the Villiers Site (former RBS building - 13/00163/B) was seven storeys in height, with the top two floors being set back form the main faced of the building.

Northern Views 6.3.4 When travelling along Strand Street the site will unlikely to be apparent due to the narrowness and heights of buildings along Strand Street. This is until you reach the square area around Marks and Spencer and IOM Bank where oblique views of the site would be achievable. Clearly the height of the new six storey building would be more imposing than the existing three storey terrace, however, as demonstrates in the photomontage submitted, it is

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  16  of  23

considered the proposal would fit well in the street scene and would not being out of keeping or inappropriate form of development appearing as the continued and varied form and mass of development found along Strand Street and Duke Streets.

East Views 6.3.5 The main public views to the east of the site are from the Promenade and Villiers Square. It should be noted that should the Villiers Square Scheme be completed then views of the site would likely be screened. However, given the Villiers Square Scheme is not in place consideration of views from the Promenade. As outline in paragraph 6.3.3 of this report, the proposal will likely be the tallest building in the area; however, there are various heights, scale, design and mass of buildings in this area. Furthermore, unlike a number of buildings in the area where these elevation are and very much appear as their respective rear elevations of the buildings, the applicants have designed this elevation with as much detail and care as the front elevation (i.e. Duke Street). Accordingly, while the proposal will appear and be taller than surrounding buildings, its design quality and approach is superior to any other building in the area and will hopeful encourage similar redevelopment in the area. Further, while the building will be a prominent building in the areas, it will also in the short to medium term also distract person/s views of the existing buildings in the area which are not especially attractive. It should be noted the rear elevation of the existing building on the site has a significantly adverse visual impact to the area as a whole and its removal is judged to be a positive.

6.3.6 South views Views from the south are only achievable from two oblique locations from Victoria Street, the first from the pedestrian crossing at the junction of Dukes Street and Victoria Street and the second from the junction of the rear access lane which serves the site (one way street) onto Victoria Street. These are likely to be the only views of the site from Victoria Street, given the height of buildings along Victoria Street (three to five storeys) which would block views. From the pedestrian crossing again a similar oblique views, as described in the North View section of this report, would be observed. Again the new building would be taller than neighbouring properties, albeit they overall are currently taller than the existing building on the site. The submitted photo montage again gives a useful visual demonstration of how the proposal would site with neighbouring properties in the street scene; and while the proposal would be taller and more dominate in the street scene; compared to the existing building, it is considered given its design including its set-backs ensure the building would fit well and bring a sensitive contemporary feel to the site and street scene. Further the corner of the building on Duke Street And Fort Street (southwest) and has a squint corner detail (45 degree angle cutting the corner of building off) made up of large sections of glazing at ground and first floor. Above this at second and third floors there would be a regular 90 degree corner again, made up of large sections of glazed sheeting, which essentially overhangs the levels below and the street. This section of the building again adds to the character and quality of the building and the street scene, creating a corner feature to the building, which will be partially apparent from the pedestrian crossing along Victoria Road.

6.3.7 West views The only views to the west of the site, is when approaching the site via Wellington Street. From this approach only a small section of the overall building is apparent, given the narrowness of the street and with three storey buildings/multi storey car park blocking views of the majority of the site. This view mainly sees the joining of where the new building meets the neighbouring red brick, two and half storey building (Nr 52 & 54 Duke Street). At this joining point, the proposal is four storeys high and therefore taller by one and half storey. However, this proposed section is actually lower than the roof line of Nr 58 Duke Street, which is the property on the other side of Nr 52 & 54. Again this demonstrates the existing variation of other buildings heights in the area. It is accepted that views of the fifth and sixth floor are also achievable from this western view, albeit these are setback from the front and side of the property and therefore this creates a gradually stepped approach, which in turns reduces the

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  17  of  23

impact and helps the proposal fit with the neighbouring property when viewed from the western view.

6.3.8 Finishes An important aspect to consider is the finishes of the building. Along Strand Street, Victoria Street, Dukes Street and Promenade Area there are a variety of design/styles of properties. These differences also introduce different finishes. The Victorian properties are made up of render/decorative render, then towards the end of the Victorian Period you have the more red brick buildings (i.e. Former Post Office building and neighbouring properties Nrs 52 to 58 Duke St), then there are 1930's Art Deco buildings (Former Burtons building, TK Max & Deals buildings) which are white stone/marble affect. There are also some more modern properties (1970's) and more recently the more contemporary buildings of JD Sports and Top shop which are mainly glazed frontages. Accordingly, there is a clear variety of materials used depending on the age/period of the building. Further as time has progressed, there have also been new shop frontages been added of various styles which age add the overall appearance and finishes of existing properties in the surrounding street scenes.

6.3.9 In this case the application proposes a mixture of mainly light grey brickwork and glazing, with smaller sections of painted smooth cast render, metal cladding and glazed windows and glass cladding. It is considered the finishes of this building are of a high quality and reflective of current period. They would not result in the building appearing intrusive within the street scenes and would just represent a different finish to a street scene which already has varied finishes. Precise details have not been included and therefore any approval of this application should include a condition for the external samples being submitted and approved by the Department prior to works commencing.

6.3.10 Conclusion (Views) It is acknowledged that design can be a very subjective matter and likely that the overall design approach of this development will not be to everyone's taste. However, it is important when dealing planning applications to try to consider design as objectively as possible.

6.3.11 In this case there are essentially two separate main views, Duke Street and from Villiers Square/Promenade. The Duke Street elevation sits within a narrow street scene with varies properties in terms of height and finishes. While the new building would be taller (approx 6.5m at heights point i.e. approx two storeys higher or 8.5m if included central stair case section) than the existing terraced building, it is considered the design approach would introduce additional interest and also fit well within the street scene.

6.3.12 In relation to views from Villiers Square/Promenade this proposal would introduce an imposing building to the area and there should be no doubt to this, albeit it is considered the site and area can accommodate such building. Further, it is concluded for the reasons indicated within paragraph 6.3.5; and that the building design/finish would again add quality and interest to this area, especially Villiers Square (which is needed) the proposal is acceptable from this respect.

6.3.13 It is noted The Planning Inspector for the previously approved scheme concluded that: "Ultimately, the assessment of the architectural design of the proposed development is a matter of subjective judgement for the Minister. Overall, in my own assessment, the building would make an individual, design statement of sufficiently high quality to justify upholding the original approval of the application."

6.3.14 It is noted the Modified Draft Area Plan for the East (Urban Environment Proposal 3) seeks that development proposals, particularly in respect of Douglas Town Centre, which are contemporary in style and which clearly demonstrate innovative design solutions which enhance local character and distinctiveness will generally be supported. It is considered this scheme would fit with this proposal.

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  18  of  23

6.3.15 Overall, it is concluded the proposal would be appropriate in terms of the visual amenities of the various street scenes indicated and therefore comply with the relevant polices GP2, EP 42 & 43 of the IOMSP and UEP3 of the Draft Area Plan for the East.

6.4 Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area/neighbouring Registered Building (EP36) 6.4.1 The site is immediately adjacent to the Promenade and Victoria Street Conservation Areas. EP34 requires that development will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.

6.4.2 As discussed in paragraphs 6.3.5 & 6.3.6 the views from the two Conservation Areas are highlighted and the impacts considered. It is not considered either Conservation Area would be adverse impacted by the development. Firstly, in relation to Victoria Street, views of the site are very minimum and the only views are oblique and do not affect the character or quality of the Victorian Street Conservation Area. Arguable, given the poor condition, alterations and appearance of the existing building (front and rear elevations), the proposal would represent an enhancement. Again this is the case for the Promenade Conservation Area, which the existing building rear elevation is in a very poor state of repair and appearance, due to alterations including extractor flues; removal of original windows, removal of the majority of chimney stacks, inappropriate signage and inadequate bin storage; all has an adverse visual impact to the Conservation Area. This proposal again is considered to be an enhancement. Again it is acknowledged that should the Villiers Scheme (i.e. continuation of RBS building along the Promenade) be completed, the application site would likely be screened from the main Promenade Conservation Area.

6.4.3 The previous Planning Inspector on this matter commented that: "I accepting that the relationship of the development to Villiers Square would be appropriate and, from observation, I agree with the Planning Authority that views of the proposed development from within both the Athol Street and Victoria Street and the Douglas Promenades Conservation Areas, including Villiers Square, would otherwise be minimal and oblique, due largely to intervening buildings. The development would accordingly not affect adversely the character or quality of the setting of either of the adjacent Conservation Areas."

6.4.4 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with EP36.

6.5 Affordable housing provision (HP 5) 6.5.1 As outlined by Housing Policy 5 there is generally that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing to developments of 8 dwellings or more. In this case there are 20 apartments and therefore 5 of these should be affordable.

6.5.2 However, as seen in DOI Public Estates and Housing Division comments, they have initially considered a commuted sum payment would be acceptable, which the Department would not disagree with in this case for the reason they have indicated. Accordingly, this can be undertaken via a Section 13 Legal Agreement. It is submitted by DOI Housing that the commuted sum payment should be £185,346.

6.6 Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g)); 6.6.1 From visiting the area the majority if not all the properties in the vicinity of the site are commercial properties. Further no objection have been received from any residential (or commercial) properties in the vicinity. Accordingly, with the information available it is not considered there would be any adverse impacts to any neighbouring residential amenities (i.e. loss of light, overbearing impacts and/or overlooking) to warrant refusal on these grounds.

6.7 Traffic Impacts / parking provision (GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8);

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  19  of  23

6.7.1 Arguable this is the main difference with the proposal, in that there is no off road parking provision provided within the site. The last application provided a total of 11 spaces within the basement of the building, which included a vehicular lift.

6.7.2 It should be noted that the applicants from the very beginning (pre app previously approved scheme) have always tried to provided parking spaces for the apartments and the last scheme provided as many spaces as possible. However, the applicants explaining that following the last approval and the demolition of the existing building on site; this allowed them to further investigated the basement proposals further, including reviewing this with their structural engineer. They explain they have looked at various options which include removal and replacement of the existing basement walls or retaining the walls with new walls built on the inside face. However, the conclusion of the investigations is that they will require a new wall in front of the existing basement walls to provide adequate structural support to the superstructure. They also comment that: "The existing basement walls provide support to Duke Street and therefore any works to remove the existing walls will inevitably result in closure of Duke Street for a prolonged period of time and will require resurfacing upon completion of works. Due to the spatial constraints of the site and its surroundings, in particular the impacts on the newly resurfaced Duke Street, we have concluded that removal of the existing basement walls was impractical."

6.7.3 Consequently with the inclusion of inner walls inside the line of the existing basement walls, this results in the overall basement depth being insufficient for cars to park and for their movement. Accordingly, the basement area is being used for individual storage space for the owners of the apartments and for cycle provision.

6.7.4 The reasoning for not having basement parking is clear and unobjectionable. While an argument could be made that parking could be provide at ground floor level, this would result in the primary use and most prominent aspect (street level) of the building being used as a car park which is not acceptable. It is also noted that the original buildings on the site also had no parking available on site.

6.7.5 While the proposal does not meet the Parking Standards of the IOMSP it is important to note that the Parking Standards state: "These standards may 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. (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."

6.7.6 Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that the demand for residential parking is likely to be greatest between 8pm and 8am the following day, and this is likely to be at a time when demand for parking in the town reduces, as people are less likely to be at work, but at home outside the town centre/near site.

6.7.7 The proposal is also within the town centre and is high accessible by alternative modes of travel and is within 30m of a main bus stop on Victoria Street and approximately 170m of the Main Lord Street Bus Station. It should also be noted that there are a number of parking restrictions on Victoria Road and the rear access lane (no access on Duke Street except for deliveries) which also actually prevent unacceptable on-street parking in the locality.

6.7.8 It is also important to consider that the principles of the IOMSP seek for sustainable development and that Transport Policy 1 which seeks that new development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian,

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  20  of  23

cycle and rail routes. The preamble to this policy is paragraph 11.2.3 which states that to meet environmental objectives new development should where possible be located and planned so as to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. It further goes on to state that such sites should be within or contiguous with existing built centres which are well served by public transport and which are within walking or cycling distance of the new development, and this will have the added benefit of strengthening the services, shops, employment opportunities and overall vitality of those centres.

6.7.9 It is noted that site is also close (apx 70m) to Drumgold Street multi storey car park (M&S), albeit this has a maximum stay of 3 hours, and within a few minutes' walk of Shaw's Brow (apx 220m - max 24 hours), Chester Street (apx 500m - max 24 hours) & Bottle Neck (apx 230m - max 120 hours) all operated by DOI/DBC. Within each of these car parks there is also the option for contract spaces would be individual resident wish to rent spaces on an annual basis. Again it should be noted that the car parks have availability between the hours of 8pm and 8am, when residents/visitors are potentially more likely to require additional parking.

6.7.10 Servicing the site by bin wagons/delivery vehicles etc would continue as it did previously, i.e. the rear access lane or via Duke Street, which during the hours of 5pm and 10am deliveries can drive along these pedestrian roads. It should be noted unlike the current situation, the proposal does include bin stores (separate residents to commercial) within the building rather than be left on the street.

6.7.11 The application also proposes secure bike store within the basement level for 20 cycles. There is also further spaces within the secure storage units for each apartment owner.

6.7.12 Overall, while the proposal would not provide any off street, it is considered the uses on this specific site, located in the centre of town, close to public transport links and good sustainable links, would all help meet the overarching aims of the IOMSP which seeks to promote sustainable development and travel which seeks to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. Highway Services also raise no objection subject to conditions.

6.7.13 This proposal also removes concern of the previous scheme (raised by neighbouring properties) of cars waiting for the vehicular lift within the building to be available and causing a traffic jam along the rear service road. It is noted no objections have been received from neighbouring properties to the lack of parking.

6.8 Open Space provision (RP3) 6.8.1 As the development proposes more than 10 residential units (i.e. 20 apartments) an Open Space provision is required. In this case it is accepted that a Commuted Sum payment via a Section 13 Legal Agreement should be provided as before, which was agreed. This is accepted given the site is close to a number of open spaces provision i.e. The Promenade, Villiers Square and Quayside and it is not considered reasonable to consider such provision being made on site. The applicants have accepted this and are in discussion with Douglas Borough Council in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 6 of the IOMSP and a figure of £12,960 has been agreed between applicants and Douglas Borough Council.

6.9 Connectivity through the site (CTA1 TAPE & SS2 DMP); 6.9.1 Part of the Douglas Master Plan SS2 and the CTA1 of the Draft Area Plan for the East, both comment that it was recommended that the application site and additional properties along Duke Street could be demolished and incorporated into the sites of Villiers Square and AXA site (referred in this report as Villiers Scheme). This is not proposed, albeit the Master Plan was clear that the ideas within it where just illustrative. However, the development of this site would not prejudice the Villiers Scheme, nor prevent the improvements to Villiers Square. Accordingly, while not exactly meeting the proposals of the DMP, it would still enable the overall

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  21  of  23

aims of the plan, to rejuvenate the whole area and provide a much improved public open space on the Villiers Square. Accordingly, the aims of the master plan could still be achieved, albeit in a different way.

6.9.2 Furthermore, the proposed scheme has been designed to essential future proof itself, by having the double frontage, which includes have large expanse of glazing and accesses from the ground floor retail unit to the rear of the site. Accordingly should further redevelopment take place to Villiers Square and in the surrounding area (i.e. café, bars, retail etc), this proposal could adapted to this easily. Furthermore, access through the building from Dukes Street to Villiers Square is shown and there is connectivity through the site, which currently does not exist.

6.10 Other Issues 6.10.1 Following comments from Douglas Borough Council the applicants have had discussions with DBC, Highways and the Department and have submitted amended/additional plans to increase the staircase widths and landings internal to provide better accessibility for accessing the bike store in the basement with a bike. All parties have come to an agreement and a condition should be attached that the details submitted are undertaken.

6.10.2 In terms of design out crime in relation to the rear main entrance which would serve the apartments, the applicants made the following comments: "The entrance to Villiers square is very much all about future planning. It is expected that Villiers Square will be developed, hopefully sooner than later, which will give a massive environmental improvement to the overall area. At that time it is more than likely that many new entrances to apartments/shops and etc will be adjacent to the square producing life and interest at night to the centre of Douglas. It is appreciated this is not the situation at the moment but by forming the duke street apartments this process is commenced.

In recognition of this being the starting point we would fully intend the entrance be well lit with carefully designed lighting. We would be happy that this is part of a planning condition and when full details are available we submit this to you and Stephen for comment.

The main door will be fully security compliant and we would consider use of CCTV systems.

We would be happy to include any further security recommendations from the local police force and happy to consult with them in due time. Hopefully the above suffices please let me know if you need anything else."

6.11.3 Again all parties (DBC, Highways and the Department) are content with the comments made by the applicants in relation to this aspect and a condition should be attached to any approval which seek additional information in relation to lighting and cctv etc to the rear of the building, to ensure a safe environment is provided for future residents of the apartments.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In conclusion for the reasons indicated within this report it is recommended the application is acceptable and complies with the relevant planning policies listed and therefore recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for commuted sum payments in lieu of for affordable housing (£185,346) and Open Space provision (£12,960).

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  22  of  23

(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __

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

Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...02.11.2020

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

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

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

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

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                      20/00679/B                                     Page  23  of  23

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 02.11.2020

Application No. : 20/00679/B Applicant : Duke Street Commercial Limited Proposal : Erection of mixed use development with ground floor retail units and 20 residential apartments Site Address : 42-50 Duke Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2AX

Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee approved the application, which included the amendment of the approved plan numbers/dates received to read as:

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

29th June 2020 17.168.020(A) 17.168.021(B) 17.168.022(B) 17.168.027(A) 17.168.028(E) 17.168.029(A) 17.168.032 17.168.033

1st September 2020 Planning Design Statement

12th October 2020 17.168.030(E) 17.168.031(C) 17.168.035

30th October 2020 17.168.036(A) 17.168.037 17.168.042(G) 17.168.043(F)