**Document:** Officer Planning Report
**Application:** 08/00132/GB — Alterations and retention of Douglas Hotel and the demolition and redevelopment of The Farmers and Clarendon Hotel to include creation of five self contained apartments (in association with 08/00133/CON)
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2008-08-15
**Parish:** Douglas
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/84606-braddan-douglas-hotel-former-demolition/documents/1572226

---

# Officer Planning Report

**Application No.:** 08/00132/GB
**Applicant:** Heron \& Brearley Ltd
**Proposal:** Alterations and retention of Douglas Hotel and the demolition and redevelopment of The Farmers and Clarendon Hotel to include creation of five self contained apartments (in association with 08/00133/CON)
**Site Address:** Douglas Hotel, (former) IOM Farmers Premises And Clarendon Hotel Douglas Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee ### Written Representations Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare Braddan Interest expressed ### Consultations Consultee : IOM Water Authority Notes: Note received Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Note received Consultee : Manx National Heritage Notes: Note received Consultee : Highways Division Notes: No objection Consultee : Douglas Corporation Notes: Note received Consultee : Chief Fire Officer Notes: Note received Consultee : Drainage Services Manager Notes: No objection in priciple subject to conditions

## Officer's Report

### The Site

The application site comprises of the Douglas Hotel, the I.O.M Farmers building and the Clarendon Hotel located on the North Quay, Douglas, within the North Quay Conservation Area. To the east and rear of the application site is a public car park. To the west of the site is a single storey building used by the Royal British Legion. The application site is located within an area zoned as predominantly shopping.

The Douglas Hotel is a substantial, four storey, 5 bay former public house, which was originally built in 1758 and is a Registered Building (RB 186). The I.O.M Farmers building and Clarendon Hotel are three storey, 3 bay properties. These properties are not registered buildings.

### Proposed Development

The application is seeking planning permission to alter the Douglas Hotel and to demolish and redevelop The Farmers and Clarendon Hotel sites to create a Public House with Function Room, Conference Facilities and 5 Self Contained Flats.

Works to the Douglas Hotel will involve the following:

1. The existing concrete roof tiles are to be replaced with natural slate. The roof structure will be repaired or replaced as found necessary.
2. The existing windows are to be individually examined and assessed and replaced as necessary with timber (painted) windows to the original design and type or as otherwise agreed with the Conservation Officer.
3. The proposed front elevation shows that the existing door on the left hand side will be altered to create a window aperture.
4. The existing external fire escape on the west facing elevation of the building will be removed; while, the fire exit will be converted into a window aperture.
5. Two new door openings will be created on the rear elevation of the building.
6. Internal alterations to create a Public House at Ground Floor level with Function Room, Conference Facilities and 2 Self Contained Flats above.

Following the demolition of the Farmers and Clarendon Hotel, a new four/three storey extension to the Douglas Hotel will be constructed to provide an extended licenced area on the ground and first floors, 2 apartments will be created on the second floor and an apartment will be created on the third floor of the extension. The extension will be project 16.1m to the side of the Douglas Hotel and will be 21.3m in depth. The height of the extension, when viewed from the North Quay, will be 16.5m to the ridge. The height of the extension to the rear will be 12.2m to the ridge.

A retractable canopy is proposed on the front elevation of the extension; however, there are no details of how much it will project outward from the front elevation.

### Planning Status And Relevant Policies

Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32, 33, 35 and 39, Housing Policy 17.

Environment Policy 32 states that "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.

6 August 2008

Environment Policy 33 states that "The change of use of Registered Buildings will only be permitted if the proposed use is appropriate and any alterations associated with the change are not detrimental to its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest."

Environment Policy 35 states that "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."

Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."

Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 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 special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."

Within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Policy RB/5, CA/2 and CA/6

Policy RB/5 states that "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering 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 special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.

Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."

Policy CA/2 states that "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.

Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."

## PLANNING HISTORY

6 August 2008

The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:

- 99/00824/B - Creation of new fire escape, The Douglas Hotel, North Quay, Douglas - granted
- 00/01330/B - Conversion of public house to offices - refused at appeal
- 00/2389/B - Alterations and refurbishment of public house with extension into adjoining retail unit and creation of two additional living units on upper level - granted
- 03/01111/B - Alterations to, and amalgamation of three properties to form a public house and residential hotel - granted
- 04/01754/CON - Registered building consent for alterations to, and amalgamation of three properties to form a public house and residential hotel - (in association with PA 03/01111/B) - Split Decision

### Representations

Douglas Corporation has advised that the Public Works Committee have agreed not to raise an objection to the application providing that there is no alteration to or obstruction of the small lane between the Douglas Hotel and the Legion Club building, which is owned by Douglas Corporation.

Highways Division of the Department of Transport do not object to the application subject to the cellar location tying up with the loading facilities provided on North Quay.

Manx National Heritage notes that the Douglas Hotel is a Registered Building and suggests that it is exterior appearance, internal arrangement and fittings (where they survive) and vaulted cellars are of significant importance. They also note that the proposal requires significant loss of masonry forming the east gable on the ground and first floor of the Douglas Hotel contiguous with the former IOM Farmers premises.

Standard Comments have been received from the Drainage Department of Douglas Corporation, Manx Electricity Authority, Isle of Man Water Authority and the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service.

A resident of Port Soderick welcomes the proposal as the regeneration of this area is long overdue and can only enhance the area. However, it is disappointing that demolition and rebuilding is required to make the development commercially viable. He also suggests that a condition is attached to the approval that the accommodation may only be occupied by employees of Heron and Brearley.

### Assessment

The assessment of this application can be split into two distinctive elements. These are: (a) the acceptability of demolishing a building within a Conservation Area and its impact within the context of the Conservation Area; and (b) the acceptability of the replacement building within the context of the Conservation Area.

Firstly, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."

Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "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 and 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 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, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

Therefore, the application should be assessed against similar criteria to that as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. It is useful to understand what criteria are used in Policy RB/6. The policy sets out the following considerations:

- "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 assessments 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;"

- "The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real effort has 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."

- "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."

The applicant's agents have provided a Structural Engineer's report which summarises the structural condition of the Douglas Hotel, Farmers and the Clarendon Hotel.

The report states that the structural condition of the Farmers is as follow:

1. Wet rot in timbers require new roof to be constructed.
2. Sloping/sagging floors require replacement.
3. A section of ground floor concrete slab to be replaced due to embedded steel rail corrosion.
4. The extent of proposed wall removal will destabilise building.

In respect of the Clarendon Hotel, the report states that "most of the ground floor load bearing walls have been removed with thin steel columns supporting the building above. Cracking in walls above indicates that downward movement has occurred due to inadequate first floor beams and/or poor constructions [sic]."

The report also states that

1. The roof would need to be demolished and replaced due to wet rot.
2. Replacement of all floor will be required due to unevenness, wet root and higher loading requirements for [the] proposed use [sic].
3. Removal of further ground floor walls to increase floor area is not considered to be a safe option due to the extent of past structural alterations [sic].

The report goes on to say that "In consideration of previous reports, present condition and on proposed use we feel that demolition of the Farmers and Clarendon buildings should be carried out [sic]. This would be the safest option due to the present structural condition. A new building could be designed to carry the higher imposed loads required for its proposed use."

The Department's retained Structural Engineer has visited the site and has considered that contents of the applicant's Structural Engineer's report. He has made the following comments in respect of the Farmers and Clarendon Hotel

Farmers

1) The main truss members appear to be in reasonable condition although there may be hidden decay at the ends of tie beams/top chords. Some purlins are in poor condition and several rafters are also in poor condition. Some of these will require replacement whilst other can be repaired. Complete replacement is not necessary in my opinion.

2) Sloping floor do not require replacement. Sagging/soft areas of flooring require investigation and possible replacement/repair.

3) The section of concrete ground floor may be replaced.

4) Where removal of walls is considered to destabilise the building alternative methods of support should be designed. This may include "goal post" type steel frames and foundations to provide adequate lateral restraint.

Clarendon Hotel

1) Introduce adequate steel posts and foundation to prevent further settlement, where this is considered to be a problem.

2) Here to the main truss members appear to be in reasonable condition although there may be hidden decay at the ends of tie beams/top chords. Some purlins are in poor condition and several rafters are also in poor condition. Some of these will require replacement whilst other can be repaired. Water ingress has occurred at several places and roof coverings will need to be attended to as well as roof drainage. Complete replacement is not necessary, in my opinion.

3) Sloping floor do not require replacement. Where there are sagging/soft spot these will require investigation and possible replacement/repair.

4) An assessment should be made of the ground floor walls and if necessary additional steel frames and foundations provided to give adequate lateral restraint to the building.

The Department's retained structural engineer has also made the following general comment: "It has been stated that higher loading requirements for timber floors is a reason to replace them. I disagree with this statement as it is possible to check the joists against new requirements and, if necessary, strengthen them. In the case of the Douglas and Clarendon Hotels I suspect that the floors, in general, can be proven to have already supported the loads for the proposed usage."

The agents have not submitted any costings for the refurbishment of the existing building to substantiate their reasons for demolishing the existing buildings. The applicant must show that efforts have been made to retain the building in use in accordance with the conservation area policies. There is insufficient evidence to show that the buildings can not be used in its current state and nor have their explored new uses for the existing buildings.

It would appear from all the evidence that the buildings do not need to be demolished and that the buildings could be renovated. Furthermore, the applicant has not carried out any proper assessment to justify the demolition of the building in relation to the Conservation Area Policy in PPS 1/01 and Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The existing building sits on a prominent corner plot within the Conservation Area. The building is of substantial architectural merit and contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I consider the loss of such a building to be unwarranted and its loss would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the locality.

6 August 2008

The second part of the assessment is whether the proposed extension to replace the existing buildings is acceptable.

The design of the building is not modern in its appearance and is trying to mimic and replicate the architecture of the existing buildings, which are to be demolished. The new buildings will an extra storey higher on the North Quay and rear elevations compared to the existing buildings. The proposed fenestration for the upper floors of the building, on the North Quay elevation, is essentially being a pastiche of the existing buildings. The ground floor of the front elevation will have folding doors allowing access on to the Quayside, a revolving door and an entrance to the apartments, which is set back from the front building. The ground floor fenestration appears to be disproportionate and unbalanced due to the inclusion of entrance way to the apartments to one side of the frontage.

Furthermore, it is proposed to erect a timber balcony with a metal balustrade and a retractable canopy on the front elevation of the extension; however, it should be noted that the plans indicate that a venue name will be advertised on the canopy and therefore the canopy would be classed as an advertisement. The merits of the canopy cannot be assessed within this application as advertisements are controlled under separate legislation, i.e. The Control of Advertisement Regulations 2005, and not the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.

In respect of the proposed balcony, there are no other buildings along the quayside which have a balcony on the front elevation. The inclusion of a balcony on the front elevation of the extension would be an incongruous addition, which would look out of character within the street scene and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The impact on the Conservation Area would be further worsened by the inclusion of a 5m x 6.5m picture window on the side elevation of the proposed extension. The window is too large and would look out of place with the building and its surroundings. These proposed details are poor. It is considered these details do not preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

In respect of the proposed three storey rear section of the building, the existing building is currently two storey in height and is comparable in height with the rear section of the Douglas Hotel. The new extension will be three storeys in height and would look out of scale and character with the rear section of the Douglas Hotel. The detailing of the rear elevation is relatively poor, bland and unbalanced compared to the existing building. The window proportions are out of keeping with the rear windows of the Douglas Hotel.

Overall, the proposed extension to the Douglas Hotel is a poor replacement of the existing buildings, which will not sit comfortably in its setting and does not respect the general character of the area considering its prominent corner plot position. The proposed extension will not enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. Furthermore, the proposal will impact on the setting of a Registered Building i.e. The Douglas Hotel.

In respect of the external alterations to the Douglas Hotel these will have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the character of the Registered Building.

The other principal issues in assessing this application are a) Land use and b) Parking provision. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.

## LAND USE

The Local Plan zoning of the site is predominantly shopping. The proposal will result in the loss of a retail unit; however, there are no retail policies to prevent the loss of retail units within such areas. The proposed extension would create a larger public house occupying the site of former retail unit.

and public house. The use would help to create a vibrant quayside and is generally an accepted use within retail areas.

The upper floors of the Douglas Hotel and the extension will be used as self-contained apartments. These residential uses can be found above commercial use and provides natural surveillance such areas. Furthermore, they can contribute to the vitality and viability of the quayside. The only concern with the residential apartments relates to the compatibility of them with the Public House use found on the first floor of the proposed extension. The transmission of noise from the first floor into the second floor apartment can be controlled by a planning condition which requires sound insulation to be installed between the apartments and the first floor. It should be noted that the bedroom windows of apartment 2 and 4 are directly above the proposed balcony where residents could be disturbed late into the evening by people congregating on the balcony; however, this could be controlled by a condition which prevents the balcony being used beyond a certain time.

## **PARKING PROVISION**

The application is not proposing any parking for the new residential apartments; however, the site is located centrally and the need for a car would be significantly less compared to a residential development in other parts of Douglas.

## **CONSERVATION OFFICER'S SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT**

This application is in two parts, namely the works to The Douglas Hotel, a Registered Building and the demolition and replacement of The Farmer's Arms and The Clarendon all of which lie within the North Quay Conservation Area. The works to the Registered Building have been in the main, been covered within the Registered Building Application 08/00133/CON.

The Registered Building aspect of the application has been considered with particular thought to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and set out below.

The Douglas has been altered internally at least two periods in its recent history. The existing second floor layout is a result of alterations in 1935 by architects Lomas and Barrett. These works are in addition to alterations to the Ground and first floor in 1895 - clearly there is little 'original' fabric remaining other than perhaps floors, staircase and outer masonry walls, but that which remains should be preserved for the future.

To start with the positives, this proposal will result in the re-use of the building which currently lies empty. The external envelope of the Registered Building is, with the exception of some minor amendments, remaining as it is. Those minor amendments include the punched holes in the gable between The Farmers and The Douglas Hotel, the infilling of the door on the left hand side of the front elevation and its replacement with a window to match the remainder of the elevation. This is undoubtedly a positive. The addition of the door to the rear is neutral in its impact.

The remainder of the proposals entail a substantial amount of removal of internal, registered fabric including all timber floors above Ground Floor level, all internal partitions and the entire roof structure. The formation of the new openings in the gable wall of The Douglas is also a concern as it removes substantial amounts of the registered fabric in an area which formerly contained fireplaces. This will mean that there are flues in the walls above these sections which would need to be dealt with. This does not appear to have been considered in this application. I am concerned that this amount of removal of the gable-end in terms of the removal of registered building fabric and the gable's stability, although I am aware that a Structural Engineer has prepared this application.

The Existing Roof & Attic Floor Plan is annotated to state that the roof is rotted and to be removed and replaced. Experience with buildings of this age and construction would lead one to expect that there may be issues with rotten purlin, rather and principle truss ends where the timber is embedded within the wall. As the building is registered, it is considered that these issues should be dealt with as

6 August 2008

sympathetic repair rather than a wholesale approach of replacement as proposed within this application.

It is noted that the structural engineer's report refers to: 'All timber window lintels have woodworm and replacement proposed.' Replacement of the windows is mentioned on the Planning Application, but not on the Registered Building Application. I will seek copies of the Planning Application Proposed Elevations for inclusion in the Registered Building Application information.

To sum up, as I understand these proposals, the only remaining historic fabric will be the major structural masonry walls and some of them will have fairly major interventions. This is not a sympathetic approach to altering a Registered Building.

Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions states:

'There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals. Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting.'

The proposals are in the main, not well justified in the accompanying Structural Engineering Report. Given the status of the building, it is expected that the approach to its alteration and extension be sympathetic, something this application is not. It is considered that these proposals do not respect the Registered status of the building, neither do the proposals protect or enhance the character of the Registered Building.

Turning to the demolition and rebuilding of The Farmer's Arms and The Clarendon, this application has been considered with particular thought to Policies CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 which are as follows:

## POLICY CA/2

## SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.

Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

## 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.

With regard to the condition of all buildings within this application, The Morton Partnership, the Department's retained Structural Engineers carried out an assessment of the building in June, their findings are on file. The findings of that report are that the buildings, whilst having the typical problems associated with their age and construction are not beyond retention and re-use. It is considered that the approach to all three buildings is not sympathetic to their status and the protection afforded to them by their inclusion within the Conservation Area. None of the reasons outlined in the accompanying Structural Engineer's report are particularly onerous and unachievable with good practice and a sympathetic approach to the building.

The replacement buildings in the main, seek to be a facsimile of the existing buildings with a number of amendments that reflect the proposed use and possibly the ease of re-build such as the loss of the central chimney stack delineating the buildings as two properties. Undoubtedly built as a pair of merchant's houses, the houses display typically Georgian / Victorian design in their use of rusticated base, window proportion and the roof set behind the parapet. The existing window format is a later addition but all in all, the façade has order and a symmetry that is impacted upon by the proposals.

The proposed elevations of the Ground Floor of The Clarendon and The Farmer's Arms utilise a late 1920's, early 1930's Art Deco approach to detailing, specifically in the lettering and glazing. This is in turn mixed in with a balcony 'with Victorian style metal balustrading' and a retractable canopy all of which detract from the façade rather than enhancing it. Add to this the apartment entrance on the quayside façade which seems an afterthought and the proposals unbalance an otherwise symmetrical quayside façade. An approach more sympathetic to the period of architecture of the existing buildings would be a more appropriate.

The additional storey of accommodation to the rear results in a loss of balance in when compared to eh existing façade. This is considered to have a detrimental approach on the Conservation Area.

To conclude, the proposed works to The Douglas Hotel are unsympathetic to the building's Registered status and the replacement of The Farmer's Arms and The Clarendon result in the unacceptable loss of a pair of historic buildings as these proposals neither preserve or enhance the North Quay Conservation Area.

**RECOMMENDATION:**

It is recommended that this application be refused for the above reasons.

## **PARTY STATUS**

The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

Manx National Heritage has commented on planning matters and has sufficient interest in the historic environment and therefore should be afforded party status in this instance.

The comments from the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service, Manx Electricity Authority and the Isle of Man Water Authority are not a material consideration and should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.

In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status: Douglas Corporation

6 August 2008

Highways Division of the Department of Transport Manx National Heritage

Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status:
Manx Electricity Authority
Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service
Isle of Man Water Authority
Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick

**Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 06.08.2008 **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal**

**C : Conditions for approval**
**N : Notes attached to conditions**
**R : Reasons for refusal**
**O : Notes attached to refusals**

R 1. The proposed demolition of the Farmers building and the Clarendon Hotel would be contrary to Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that no proper assessment has been carried out and submitted to assess the merits/justification for the demolition of the building. It is therefore considered that the demolition of the building would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

R 2. The proposed change of use of the Douglas Hotel would be contrary to Environment Policies 32 and 33 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Policy RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in that the proposed works are not sympathetic to the registered building, which does not protect or enhance the character of the registered building. Furthermore, the application does not provide sufficient evidence to justify the level of works required in order to renovate the building.

R 3. The proposed extension to the Douglas Hotel would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 32 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 by reason of its height, design, massing and external appearance in that the extension will not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which will be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality, and will impact on the setting of a Registered Building.

**Decision Made :** __________________________

**Committee Meeting Date :** 14/3/08

---

*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/84606-braddan-douglas-hotel-former-demolition/documents/1572226*