DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00970/A Applicant: Miss Delia Maguire Proposal: Approval in principle to maintain the front facade of the hotel and demolish and develop the building into apartments with associated parking Site Address: Trevelyan 18 - 19 Palace Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NE Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.10.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Insufficient information has been provided to determine whether the existing building can be retained including whether the front facade can be retained and incorporated into any new development and therefore the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 39 and Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy and Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. - R 2. Insufficient information has been provided to adequate demonstrate any new development would not result in the replacement or alteration of a significant amount of the historical fabric of the existing building and therefore would not preserve or enhance the quality of the Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site represents "Trevelyan" at 18 Palace Terrace on the Queens Promenade in Douglas. The building is a six storey mid terrace building is situated between Place View Terrace and Switzerland Road and adjacent to Marathon and Athol Terrace.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for approval in principle to maintain the front facade of the hotel and demolish and develop the building into apartments with associated parking. - 2.2 All matters have been reserved for future consideration. There are no proposed plans included in the submission or detail show the works would be undertaken.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Approval in principle for erection of residential apartments with associated car parking 89/01524/A - APPROVED - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site falls within an area designated as "Mixed Use" under the Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is within a Conservation Area. The site is not within a high tidal flood risk zone.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 4.3 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 4.4 Spatial Policy 2 states: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services

• - Ramsey
• - Peel
• - Port Erin
• - Castletown
• - Onchan Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."

4.5 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."

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

4.7 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." 4.8 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."

4.9 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." - 4.10 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." - 4.11 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." 4.12 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

4.13 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):

"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...

• 7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to:

• o the condition of the building;

• o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
• o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

4.14 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." - 4.15 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man): "POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

• o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may
• outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
• o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Douglas Borough Council (22.03.2021).

5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (02.09.2021):

"Under this submission all matters are reserved with only a broad description is provided of the likely scale of development at c20 apartments. The highway requirements for development proposals are contained in the IOM Strategic Plan, Manual for Manx Roads, Making a Planning Application - A Guide for Applicants: Supplementary Guidance on Highways Issues and the Residential Design Guide. Any variation should be demonstrably justified.

As noted the proposal site is accessible. A choice of modes is available and should be enhanced, such as through direct pedestrian access from Queens Promenade rather than the rear service road, bicycle parking and disabled access and parking.

Vehicular access is as existing from the public highway at front on Queens Promenade and at rear from the service road via Switzerland Road and/or Queens Promenade. The service road is unsuitable for a significant increase in movements whether by pedestrians or vehicles due to its relatively narrow width and shared use.

No layout is shown of the proposed floor arrangements. Details are necessary.

Any car parking should conform in amount to the IOM Strategic Plan minimum car parking standards for apartments of one space per one bedroom; two spaces for two or more bedrooms (c40) and be compared with the extant use as a hotel at one space per guest bedroom (78). Where this is reduced or unintended due to the application of relaxations, a parking survey of surrounding streets should be provided. Additionally, bicycle parking would be expected in mitigation at one space per bedroom. This would need to be positioned in a secure and enclosed storage facility that is easily reached and separate from the waste bin storage. Visitor cycle parking should be considered too which should be separate from the long stay provision.

Car parking spaces should have minimum dimensions of 5 x 2.5m for standard spaces and 6.6 x 3.6m for disabled use. Where a communal parking area is proposed there should be an aisle width of 6m with a reversing area of minimum 1m.

Electric vehicle charging points should be considered to serve any car parking spaces, bicycles and mobility scooters. Full details will be necessary of position and type. Additionally, the requirements will be necessary too for ad hoc deliveries and collections as well as servicing, including any parking and turning points.

Waste bin storage should be to the local authority or a private contractor's requirements. The LA's criteria are available from Douglas Borough Council. Access and turning should be demonstrated by a swept path analysis.

The Applicant / Developer shall provide run off / surface water drainage where necessary to prevent water from flowing out onto or damaging the public road.

No transport assessment or travel plan is necessary on the proposal remaining at approximately 20 dwellings units.

The proposal does not raise significant road safety or functionality issues, subject to the main access for pedestrians to be from Queens Promenade, provision for those with mobility impairments, bicycle parking and the submission of satisfactory details in the form of written specification and / or appropriately scaled plans. Accordingly, HDC raises no opposition subject to a condition for further details at reserve matters stage to cover:

• i. Pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation arrangements.
• ii. Bicycle, car and disabled parking assessment on varying from the adopted standard and criteria
• iii. Servicing, ad hoc collections and deliveries, including loading, unloading and turning points
• iv. Waste storage and collection, including a swept path analysis. Recommendation: DNOC"

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application:

• (a) principle of development;
• (b) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities;
• (c) potential impact upon highway safety/parking provision;
• (d) potential drainage/flooding issues; and
• (e) affordable housing provision/ open space provision.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 The first issue relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, site is proposed for mixed use. Accordingly, the proposed use would comply with the land use designation and also Strategic Policy 6 & 7 and Housing Policy 4.

6.3 There are significant concerns of the lack of appropriate detail on how the front faced would be retained and how the core of the building would be demolished. No structural report is included nor any detailed plans which demonstrate that the front facade can be accommodated within the new development of the core. On this matter the only information the applicants provide is: "The Approval of Planning Application 89/01524/A identified the retention of the front façade of the building as an important factor in the success of the proposals and this retention will form the basis of this application. The front façade is part of a terrace of hotels which would be difficult to demolish without causing damage to the remaining facades of the other hotels. The open core of the hotel will be demolished and infilled to maximise space for the new apartments, given the thick stone walls and irregular shape of the existing building making it impractical to reuse.

The rear of property will act as a pedestrian access/egress route as well as a refuse/recycling collection point as it is currently."

6.4 When the department considers any AIP application it needs to be comfortable that such development can reasonable be achieved. In this case the Department does not consider there is sufficient information to judge that the front facade can be retained while the demolition works are undertaken and can also be incorporated into any new development.

6.4 Environment Policy 39 indicates that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP) of this policy indicates that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to;

• 1) the condition of the building;
• 2) the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• 3) the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and
• 4) the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

6.5 The applicants in response state: "Under Environment Policies 34, 35, 39, 42 & 43 the stonework and architectural features of the front façade will be maintained in their current form, however a more modern cavity construction will be used to for the proposed external walls in order to improve the thermal capacity of the property. This will allow the option to use modern structure for the stability of the proposal as well as the buildings which flank the proposal site. The render finish and slate roof will match that of the original building and those finishes of the neighbouring property, including more thermal UPVC windows for new installations." And "The existing tourism use of the Trevelyan has been affected by the current Covid pandemic, although this style of hotel, without en-suite bedrooms, has made the hotel less popular than more modern, newly built or refurbished hotels that offer a variety of facilities for the modern traveller or

• visitor. The stone construction and above ground drainage of the building make it uneconomical to develop given the awkward, core shape of the property."
• 6.6 The hotel is still in use and while the applicants comment on the services the hotel currently provides and the difficulties to compete with newly built or refurbished hotels, the applicants have not particularly commented in detail of the four points outlined in par 6.4 of this report. It is therefore difficult to argue or justify that the application addresses these points. The proposal does indicate the front face would be retained, which is a positive as this certainly does have architectural and historic interest within the Conservation Area and forms an important part of the terrace. However, again the lack of details of how this is to be retained and how any new development would be incorporated raises significant concern. An example of this issue is the applicants indicate that; "In line with General Policy 2, which identifies the maintenance of the building fabric and context as an important factor in development, very little will be changed on the external façade of the building, albeit access to basement parking on the front and a more modern rear façade."
• 6.7 The creation of basement parking will require part of the front facade to be demolished, again how will this impact the rest of the façade. Further the Department has initial concerns of a vehicular access to the front of the building to access basement parking, as this would adversely affect the character and appearance of the building and the Conservation Area. It will also result in a reduction of on street parking. There is no possibility of access to the rear due to narrowness of rear lane. Accordingly, again this is concern there is insufficient information to make an assessment or for the Department to be comfortable that such development would be acceptable in all respects. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
• 6.8 At this stage with no details of the number of dwellings, siting, design, layout etc the Department cannot make a full assessment at this stage. A Reserved Matters application would consider this aspect. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY & PARKING PROVISION
• 6.9 As outlined by Highway Services any future Reserved Matters application would need to provide a substantial level of detail. Therefore, at this stage a full assessment cannot be made. However, there are concerns of any vehicular access to the front of the building accessing off Queens Promenade. POTENTIAL DRAINAGE/FLOODING ISSUES
• 6.10 The application site is not within a high tidal flood risk zone. No objection has been received. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION/PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
• 6.11 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority 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. Further, Recreation Policy 3 indicates that 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. As there is no indication of the number of dwellings at this stage (some mention is made to 20 apartments within applicants statement), a calculation cannot be made at this stage. However, as an AIP is the main planning application; with the Reserved Matters application being essentially complying with the conditions laid out in the AIP, the key procedure and key aspects (Section 13 etc) need to be included at this AIP stage. Therefore a Section 13 Legal Agreement would be required at this stage which agrees that Affordable Housing and Public Open Space either on site, off site or commuted sum where appropriate would be provided.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal does not provide sufficient information to adequate demonstrate that front facade would be retained; how the core of the building would be demolished and how the front facade would be incorporated into any new development. While the principle of residential development is acceptable for the reasons outlined within this report, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2, Transport Policy 4 & 7, Environment Policy 35 & 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 .

- 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;
• (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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made: Refused Date: 27.10.2021 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

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.