**Document:** Appeal Planning Statement **Application:** 07/01424/B — Construction of a single storey apartment on roof above apartments no 15,16 and 17 and adjacent to apartment 22 **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2007-12-17 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/83448-braddan-douglas-head-apartments-roof/documents/1504460 --- # Appeal Planning Statement LOZNEW/AP08/0001 APPEAL AGAINST APPROVAL FOR A NEW ROOF TOP APARTMENT AT DOUGLAS HEAD APARTMENTS DOUGLAS HEAD IM1 5BY For ROCKBOROUGH LIMITED and MR J S ANDERSON PLANNING STATEMENT Philip Edward Chadwick BA . (Hons) Dip. Arch. (Oxford) ,RIBA, ARAIA, MAPS. Savage & Chadwick Architects February 2008 ## Contents 1. Introduction 2. Site 3. Design Proposals 4. Summary / Conclusion 5. Appendices A – Photographs B – Correspondence ## 1. Introduction 1.1. I am instructed by Rockborough Limited and Mr J Anderson (the Appellants) to present a Statement in support of their grounds for Appeal against the decision of the Planning Committee to grant Planning permission for the erection of a substantial apartment to the existing roof top of Douglas Head Apartments. 1.2. I am a Chartered Architect and have been a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects since 1983. I hold a degree in Architectural Studies and a Post Graduate Diploma in Architecture. I have also been a member of the Association of Planning Supervisors since 1998 dealing with Construction Design & Management Regulations. I am also a member of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects with a variety of experience including high-end value houses for individual clients and medium density housing. 1.3. I have been a Director of Savage & Chadwick Architects in the Isle of Man since 1989 and am familiar with the site. 1.4. This statement is submitted to support the Appeal. ## 2. Site 2.1 From the information submitted for the application the project appears to be the utilisation of an area of roofline of the existing Douglas Head Apartments adjacent to the registered tower feature of the former existing hotel building. 2.2 The location as noted is on the northeasterly end of the existing development. 2.3 As noted on the Architects drawing reference SC1056/16-02/P-01 this elevation has a high level of visibility to Douglas Harbour in the direction of the Sea Terminal and Promenade. Also it is an elevated skyline development in the context of the existing building. 2.4 The roof areas of Apartments 15, 16 and 17 are overlaid by the proposed development and is immediately adjacent to my Client's apartment no 18. 2.5 My Clients have an interest in the development as Third Party and are owners of Apartments 11, 18 and 19. It is also noted that other owners / occupiers (10 and 34) have commented. 2.6 We would also draw to the Inspector's attention to the siting of the Notice, which was on the door of the bin store on site – not the site boundary. As such we question whether this prevented an opportunity for further comment by adjacent landowners or other members of the public to such a visible alteration. ## 3. Design Proposal 3.1 It is evident from the drawings as submitted that the design proposal is of a contemporary nature at a skyline position over a reasonable proportion of the building sitting upon a roof element that is designed in a mansard format, which already elevates the roofline from the castellated wall section below. 3.2 There is a strong reference to a similar designed building at a lower level, which is a recent development, but of a single design format. 3.3 The proposal includes the use of high levels of glazing with polyester powder coated aluminium frame systems and an outer plate glass balustrade to external decking. In consideration of the Architect’s elevations as submitted the proposal appears to rise approximately 2.9m above the existing mansard with the flat roof being there or thereabouts at the top of the castellation to the northeasterly projecting square tower. 3.4 Walls are noted as natural cedar cladding and as noted the roof is a single membrane or GRP flat roof. ### Discussion 3.5 The existing building was developed originally in the early 20th century and subsequently redeveloped by a local developer in 1999/2000 approx. to create a multiple occupancy building subdivided into 46 apartments, which were for sale on the open market. It is believed that all apartments are sold. The building (whilst the apartments are on a long lease basis), fabric is owned under a Management Company structure. 3.6 In relation to the design, the existing building is a typical castellated structure, the details of which are seen in many other locations around the Island i.e. The Nunnery at Kewaigue, Milntown at Ramsey and a number of other residential developments that are historic and have undergone alteration over their lifetime. 3.7 With regards to this particular proposal the form of skyline development onto the roof is of a contemporary treatment, which is wholly inconsistent with the existing building and is in, my opinion, incongruous with the existing structures and does not sit easily upon the rooftop of the building. In order to be in complete contrast and a contemporary manner relative to the existing structure, it is my opinion that the fenestration treatment of roof top addition is poor in the context of the design proposed. 3.8 The solution, if it were to be accepted, should, in my view, be very minimalist, i.e. seamless glazing with a seamless balustrade. However, I have concerns in relation to the visual impact of the design (having looked at a photomontage), because of the effect of the night time use with high levels of artificial lighting spilling from that development at roof level, it would, in my opinion, sit uncomfortably relative to the nature and the design of the general fenestration of the building overall. 3.9 Insofar as the Planning Officer’s consideration it is noted that other written representations have been received in respect of this application with objections. From the Planning Officer’s report it would appear that the main Statutory Consultees have no specific objections and that in reviewing the Officer’s report specific reference is made to the current Strategic Plan 2007 and the policies considered relevant i.e. Policy 2, Policy 6 and Policy 7. Of particular interest is the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment’s comments and we would concur with their view that the Douglas Head Hotel was effectively to have remained in its architectural form albeit that they rightly point out the mansard treatment does detract from the original architectural style. Whilst they share a view insofar as green field development two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. In the assessment carried out by the Planning Officer there is a suggestion that the proposals “lightweight appearance” within the locality and its modern approach compliments the existing features. Whilst a modern approach may be an approach to take, it is my opinion that approach has not gone far enough. Furthermore a matter the Planning Officer has not appeared to have given cognisance to the impact of such high levels of glazing on a period style building in the night sky. Clearly with that high level of glazing that is proposed, albeit in a rather unfortunate fenestration format, there will be, in my view, significant light spillage from the roof level, which again will be inconsistent with the regular format of windows to the period style of the property (see photo in Appendix A). I feel that this is an important aspect that has been significantly overlooked in this determination. 3.10 In regards to Planning Policy, the Officer in his submission correctly notes that Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 sets out the criteria for development either with or in the absence of a Brief and the Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and not necessarily be prescriptive. I would put forward that in the context of this, relative to an already extensively redeveloped building, (where there was an imperative clearly for the historical context of the elevation, treatment and facade to remain largely intact / preserved) and with Registered Building parts, it is slightly concerning that such an unsympathetic addition is now being proposed. 3.11 With regards to Section 16.3 of the Town and Country Planning Act and as the Planning Officer states “that in considering whether to grant Planning Approval for development which affects a Registered Building or its setting or whether to grant Registered Building consent for any works the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting or any features of any special architectural and historical interest which it possesses”. Clearly there was an imperative when this building was developed for apartments that the style of the historic building was preserved and maintained. The mansard, (which is unfortunate), is a reasonable compromise relative to the mass of the building overall. It is my view however, that relative to what is now proposed even though it is accepted there is an angle of visual cut off from certain key points close to it, as illustrated by the Applicant, what is proposed will be more visible from a distant view. 3.12 In buildings such as this it is my opinion that old and new can be brought together but generally where the new is a distinct element apart from the existing building and where they can relate through well detailed interface i.e. one building or addition comes up against another. Also in relation to the modern addition, often the success is in being mindful of the form or format of the existing building. A very successful replacement is to the Villiers Hotel on Douglas Promenade adjacent to the Sea Terminal; there the Architect achieved an example of a wholly modern building that replaced a historic hotel that was a feature of the corner junction between Victoria Street and the Promenade. In that it is quite evident that the Architect sought to replicate the rhythm of the bays of the Victorian / Edwardian Promenade in the design of the building. In this application there is no attempt to work within the geometry of the building through its fenestration, alignment and the proposal for large format windows with a central single top hung casement (again relative to the vertical sliding sash format windows) is not, in my opinion, appropriate in that they should either be large areas of sliding glass with some other means introduced to the design in natural ventilation to the building addition and fixed and silicone jointed or in a manner consistent with the existing form. 3.13 Also in addition, Mr Anderson has received letters of concern from neighbours in respect of the proposals. As has been noted No 10, 34 and my Clients have objected with concerns over this. I have also enclosed the letters from the neighbours in Appendix B of this submission to underline the ‘voice’ of concerns that some residents have. ### 4. Summary / Conclusion 4.1 Whilst there has been little in the way of objection by Statutory Consultees to this application other than a view of disappointment from the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment, it is as if this application "missed the radar" in relation to due consideration of its impact upon the existing building. This may be as a result of the location of the Site Notice. 4.2 As I have set out it is my opinion that whilst you can incorporate wholly modernistic designs with historic or period buildings, it would largely depend upon the location of that addition and how it interrelates with the format, form, and fenestration of the existing building itself. 4.3 In this instance the proposal as approved attempts to sit an addition, with some modernist glazing to create a further apartment unit with flat roof, above other period elements (the mansard roof). This, in my view, is an unsuccessful solution. 4.4 Also I think no consideration appears to have been given by the Planning Officer in his assessment, nor the Architect in their submission, as to the impact the design this will have under night conditions. Bearing in mind that through the winter period the evenings are dark from approximately 4.00pm to 8.00/8.30am in the morning the proposal will be highly visible in an inconsistent way at roof level to the existing building. Light, which will be emitted from the fenestration of the building and the lower apartments will be significantly different in format. 4.5 Notwithstanding that this is a communally occupied building which is collectively owned. 4.6 Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 would seem to offer the opportunity for a very modern approach, I would suggest that in this instance that has not yet been achieved in that the design has not been taken to its ultimate conclusion. 4.7 Whilst encouragement is there for development it is my view that consideration would have to be given to the location of such development and its impact upon the fabric of the building, which may well, be historic or Registered. 4.8 For the reasons stated above I would urge the Inspector to fully reconsider the decision taken under delegated powers by the Director of Planning on behalf of the Committee and to accept the Appeal of Rockborough Limited and Mr J Anderson in that this proposal is not successful in its design, will visually impact upon the building and as a skyline development will be highly visible particularly in the night sky. ## Appendix A Photograph ![A night-time photograph of a large, multi-story detached building featuring a central crenellated tower section and balconies, illuminated against a dark blue sky.](https://images.planningportal.im/2007/07/7185833.jpg) --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/83448-braddan-douglas-head-apartments-roof/documents/1504460*