Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00230/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00230/B Applicant : Miss Delia Maguire Proposal : Part demolish of existing hotel maintaining front facade and erection of 15 replacement apartments, creation of a basement car park and associated bicycle storage Site Address : Trevelyan 18 - 19 Palace Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NE
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.11.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal neither preserves nor enhances the character and appearance of the existing site within the Conservation Area, as such the proposal will negatively impact the Conservation Area and would be contrary to Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999) and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. 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 3. 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.
R 4. The proposal does not provide a suitable pleasant clear outlook from the apartments situated to the rear of the site, from the main principle room or the secondary principle room and as such is the proposal does not comply with Housing Policy 17.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00230/B Page 2 of 9
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
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.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing hotel, whilst keeping the front façade in place. The proposed new rear structure will be at the same height as existing structure and will infill the existing empty space to the rear.
2.2 No details has been provided within this application on how the proposed façade will be kept with regards to structural works.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There is one previous application which is relevant to this assessment, PA21/00970/A which was for "Approval in principle to maintain the front facade of the hotel and demolish and develop the building into apartments with associated parking" and was Refused for the following reasons; R1 - 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.
R2 - 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.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Mixed Use" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 4 - Douglas. The site is within a Conservation Area but not a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00230/B Page 3 of 9
4.2.1 There are three policies within the Area Plan for the East what are relevant to the assessment of this application, Tourism Proposal 1 which seeks that applications for the conversion of hotels in the eastern area to other uses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the premises is not of a sufficient standard and upgrading would not be feasible, Tourism Proposal 2 which seeks that alterations to existing tourist will be supported but must meet certain criteria's and Transport Proposal 1 which seeks that new dev elopement takes into account the Active Travel Strategy.
4.3 STRATEGIC PLAN 4.3.1 Given the nature of the of the proposal and the property being within a Conservation Area, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) is the most relevant in the assessment of this application. Followed by paragraph 7.29.2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which set out development in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.
4.3.2 This policy is then followed closely by the supporting text within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Environment Policy 39 which states that there is a general presumption in favour of retaining building which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
4.3.3 This policy is then followed by the following strategic policies; Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3; Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel; Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; Environment Policy 34 advocates the use of traditional materials in the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920's buildings. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Recreation Policy 3 - in developments of more than ten dwelling, amenity space should be in accordance with Appendix 6 Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Housing Policy 5 - in developments over 8 dwellings or more 25% of provisions should be affordable housing; Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 6 - in new development pedestrians will be given the same weight as to other road users. Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation
4.4 PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 1/01
4.4.1 Within the Planning Policy Statement 1/01 there is one policy which is relevant to the assessment of this application, Policy CA/6 Demolition which seeks the same outcome as Environment Policy 39, whilst applying the criteria of Policy RB/6 Demolition which consider the following but are not limited to, costs of repairing and maintaining the existing structure, the
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00230/B Page 4 of 9
adequacy of efforts to retain the existing structure and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have assessed the application and request additional details be provided regarding several items. (7.4.22)
5.3 Douglas Borough Council have considered the application and do not object to the proposal subject to a condition which would demonstrate that the front façade of the property could be safety maintained. (16.05.22). Correspondence was also received from The Head of Parks for Douglas Borough Council to state that the proposal would be subject to a Section 13 agreement between the council and the developer to the sum of approximately, £9,900. (6.04.22)
5.4. DEFA Fisheries have written in to state that they have no concerns regarding the proposal. (29.03.22)
5.5 DOI Public Estates and Housing Division have written in to state that a section 13 agreement would be required for Affordable Housing. (29.03.22)
5.6 DEFA Biodiversity have written in to state there may be bats and nesting birds within the site and as such they request that a condition is added so that a bat and nesting birds survey is done prior to commencement of the demolition works. (8.4.22)
5.7 The Principle Registered Buildings Officer has written in to object to the proposal on the basis that the building contributes to the Conservation Area and that there is a lack of information on how the proposal is to come to fruition. (22/00230/B)
5.8 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society have written in to object to the proposal, they state the application is a repeat of the Approval in Principle and they have concerns regarding the proposed work and lack of submitted information. (19.04.22)
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 SECTION 18(4) TEST
6.2.1 Due to the proposed works being in a Conservation Area it is necessary to test the application under section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999), see section 4.2 of this report, on whether the works preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
6.2.2 The Douglas Promenade Character Appraisal makes a direct statement regarding the Trevelyan Hotel and states, "There are some interesting plaques high up on the Trevelyan Hotel, which commemorate the successes of Manx choirs in the Blackpool and Morecombe Music Festivals in 1907, at a time when part of the terrace was being erected."
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00230/B Page 5 of 9
6.2.3 The Character Appraisal then moves onto the terrace as a whole and states, "The terraces are large and uniform in scale with a height above basement of five storeys. The terrace represents one of the most intact sections of the promenades and its unified height and extent of is a distinctive feature of the Douglas seafront. Properties vary from single bay to double bay and some hotel's now embrace several originally separate units. Many original architectural features survive such as sliding sash windows, decorative stucco work, projecting porticos and decorative iron work, all of which serve to underscore and enhance the special character and unified appearance of this striking group."
6.2.4 Assessing the Section 18(4) test is difficult one and as such this has been looked at from two separate parts of the application, whilst the most recent drawings provided show that there is one load bearing wall to be kept, no details have been provided to suggest that this would be enough to keep the front facia stable during the works.
6.2.5 From the information supplied in the Character Appraisal of this part of the promenade we can clearly see that the front façade is a very important part of the overall character and appearance within the streetscene and the Conservation Area.
6.2.6 There are several things which can go wrong with keeping the front façade with just the one load bearing wall situated between the two bay windows, especially when noting that the load bearing wall is being altered and removed from the basement level, with the most unacceptable in Planning terms being any damage which could cause the front to have to be demolished, which has sadly happened within other structures upon the Island.
6.2.7 Turning towards the removal of a bay within the front window to a car parking area, firstly there are no details to suggest that this would be gated, so for the benefit of doubt it is taken that the proposed car parking area is to be open at all times. Once again it is necessary to note that the front façade is the main feature upon this site, with the other structures within the terrace following the same lines and designs, as such the removal of the bay window has the potential to have a harmful impact upon the structure itself and the overall streetscene.
6.2.8 There is also the issue that the "basement" floor is at the same level as the main footpath, as such it would be highly noticeable that there is a car park within the site, which would impact the overall streetscene by substantially changing it and removing part of the façade which needs to be kept.
6.2.9 Overall there is not enough information within the application to accept the one load bearing wall proposed will be enough to keep the front façade in place, without structural information and evidence to prove this can be done without any damage, it cannot comply with section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999).
6.2.10 The same can be said regarding the removal of part of the structure to create car parking, there is not enough evidence to prove that this can be done without impacting the front façade, whilst this is the case, the removal of this part of the structure, due to where it is situated at eye level would have the most impact and as such would not comply with Section 18(4).
6.2.11 Whilst the application has failed on Section 18(4) which means that it cannot be progress, it should be necessary to assess the rest of the application, encase there is an appeal against the decision.
6.3 PRINCIPLE
6.3.1 When considering the proposal of the application, this can be seen in two parts firstly the proposed change from hotel into apartments and also for the proposed works due to the site.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00230/B Page 6 of 9
6.3.2 The Isle of Man Spatial Strategy (ISS) for Douglas and the East seeks the key continued regeneration within Douglas, particularly around the Promenades, Quayside and Douglas Regeneration Area to create further housing, employment, retail and leisure opportunities. As such there is a general presumption for the redevelopment of the sites within the Promenade.
6.3.3 The changing nature of tourism on the Island and the reduction in demand for traditional guesthouses on Douglas Promenade has led to a number of applications in recent years, for their conversion into dwellings and apartments. The use as a residential building would ensure the continued use and maintenance of the property within a Conservation Area which in turn will lend itself to the life and vibrancy of the Promenades that are in Douglas.
6.3.4 The site sits within a mixed use area as such the change of use from tourist accommodation to residential is therefore in keeping within the Area Plan for the East and also the wider Strategic Plan, as such the change of use part of the proposal is acceptable in principle.
6.3.5 Moving onto the proposed works to the structure. There are significant concerns on the lack of information provided within this application on how the front façade would be retained based on the information received, even whilst noting that a load bearing wall is to remain. 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.
6.3.6 As with the previous Approval in Principle application, the Department needs to be comfortable that such development can reasonably be achieved, especially due to the structure being within a Conservation Area. In this case of this application the Department does not consider there is sufficient information to judge that the front façade can be retained while the demolition works are undertaken and can also be incorporated into any new development.
6.3.7 Turning towards Environment Policy 39 which seeks that there is a general presumption in favour of retaining structures which make a positive contribution to the character and 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.
6.3.8 Within their Planning Statement the applicants 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 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." Followed by, "The existing tourism use of the Trevelyan has been affected by the 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."
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00230/B Page 7 of 9
6.3.9 The hotel is currently still in use and while the applicants have provided information of 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 above in this report.
6.3.10 Whilst the proposal does indicate that the front façade is to be retained, which as stated above is a positive contribution to the overall streetscene by forming an important part of the terrace, with the property having architectural and historic interest within the Conservation Area. The lack of information within this application is unsettling and raises significant concern.
6.3.11 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."
6.3.12 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.
6.4 IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
6.4.1 Turning towards the amenity standards available from the apartments. When looking at the Strategic Plan, amenity standards are fundamental to any assessment with Strategic Policy 1, General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 all seeks that the amenity standards of any development is acceptable.
6.4.2 With regards to the proposed works within this site, Housing Policy 17 is the most relevant and has three parts which need to be adhered by; "(a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area."
6.4.3 Turning firstly to part a) and c), it can be seen from the layouts of each floor that there is suitable space within each apartment for either a clothes drying horse or even a tumble dryer, refuse is situated to the rear yard and car parking has been discussed above. As such from part a), the proposal is deemed acceptable.
6.4.4 When looking at part b), this is where the proposal falls down. The proposal now in front of the Department, is slightly better than what was previously received with regards to the rear flats, whilst this is the case, the outlook from these apartments is still unacceptable. Paragraph 8.13.3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, lends advice with regards to outlook from the rear, whilst for when no demolition is taking place is still highly relevant, "every flat has an outlook from the front of the building, and so that no flat is contained entirely within an "outlet". Exception may be made to this general approach where the environment at, and the outlook from, the rear are pleasant and open."
6.4.5 It is understood from the application that the site will be re-built in the rear, nevertheless it is relevant to note that this re-building has not advantaged the rear of the site. Whilst it
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00230/B Page 8 of 9
could be said that the steeply rising cliff to the rear could add an interesting outlook, it could not be said that it provides a "pleasant" or "clear" outlook. This concern is only exacerbated by the low level of natural light that would be afforded to the residents of those flats.
6.5 IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY/ PARKING PROVISIONS
6.5.1 When looking at whether the proposal would impact highway safety/ have enough parking with regards to parking provisions, Highway Services have noted the amended drawings and state, "the proposal does not raise significant road safety or network functionality issues. Accordingly, Highways Development Control do not no oppose the revised proposal subject to a condition for the access and layout to accord with Drawing No's: JTM2028-P-04 rev B and -07 rev B." As such from a highway safety impact the works are deemed acceptable.
6.5.2 Transport Policy 7 in connection with appendix 7 gives the required car parking standards for apartments and states, "1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms." This means that the required car parking standards for the site would be 25 car parking spaces.
6.5.3 Understandably due to the location of the property, the site does not currently have parking available but with the proposed alterations to the basement level, the site is proposing to provide 15 spaces of which one is a disabled bay. There is also the addition of bike parking within this basement level.
6.5.4 Overall taking in the advantages of re-using a historic site, an exception on the car parking spaces available to the site, is accepted. It is also worth noting that the site is very close by to several different means of transport, including bus and rail routes.
6.6 HOUSING PROVISION/ OPEN SPACE PROVISION
6.6.1 Turning towards affordable housing and open space provisions, Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority will normally require that 25% of housing provisions should be made up of affordable housing. Public Estates and Housing Division have looked at the amount of available apartments within this application and state, "The notional number of affordable units will be based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the total number of units approved within the application. Accordingly, the Commuted Sum should equate to 3.75 affordable units. The estimated Commuted Sum contribution will be c. £120,000 based upon an average selling price per square metre for apartments on Douglas Promenade as compared to £2,380/m2 selling price for an affordable apartment."
6.6.2 As such, this is deemed acceptable with a Section 13 Agreement, with the Department to ensure that this is adhered to.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Overall, whilst the principle of the change from hotel to apartments would be deemed acceptable, the application does not provide sufficient information to adequately demonstrate that even whilst keeping a load bearing wall within the property, that the front façade would not be compromised.
7.2 The character and appearance of the overall streetscene will be impacted by the proposal with the removal of part of the front façade, to facilitate the basement parking which in turn does not comply with Section 18(4) of the Isle of Man Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.3 The proposal doesn't provide a clear nor pleasant outlook from the rear apartments from either the principle or secondary principle rooms and as such the proposal does not comply with Housing Policy 17.
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00230/B Page 9 of 9
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: 24.11.2022
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal