**Document:** SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement
**Application:** 22/00616/B — Installation of flue (Retrospective)
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2022-07-08
**Parish:** Michael
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/8986-michael-30-cleiy-rhennee-chimney-retrospective/documents/951776

---

# SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 22/00232/B

Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: stevebutlerdefa@gov.im

28th November 2023 Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 23/00616/B Proposal: Demolition of the existing former Citadel building, and the erection of a 44 bedroom hotel with associated drainage, refuse bin storage and pick up layby and reinstatement of the adjacent pavements Address: The Former Salvation Army Citadel, Lord Street, Douglas Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by the Planning Committee on 21st August 2023, which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The statement comprises the following parts:

- 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
- 2. Appendix 2 – Extract from Planning Committee Minutes

Yours sincerely,

#### Steve Butler Head of Development Management

### Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

## STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Demolition of the existing former Citadel building, and the erection of a 44 bedroom hotel with associated drainage, refuse bin storage and pick up layby and reinstatement of the adjacent pavements

The Former Salvation Army Citadel Lord Street Douglas PA Reference - 23/00616/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Steve Butler (Head of Development Management)

- 1.0 Approval Reason and Conditions
- 1.1 The applications was approved for the following reason;

“It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with the relevant planning polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the East 2020, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Climate Change Act 2021, Our Island and Our Future Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022- 2032”

- 1.2 Seven conditions were applied (as detailed on the decision notice).

- 2.0 Legal and Policy Position
- 2.1 In accordance with S10 of the Town and Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
- (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
- (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
- (d) all other material considerations.

- 2.2 It is a statuary duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.
- 2.3 That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF.
- 2.4 In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East, as they have been though a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation, and are adopted by Tynwald.
- 2.5 There is not considered to be any other material considerations that would weigh against the application to such an extent to warrant refusal, indeed as set out in the reason for approval and in the Officer’s report there are a number of other material considerations that weight in favour.

- 3.0 Response to the Reasons for Appeal
- 3.1 This report addresses the six reasons directly, for a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report supplied with the initial documentation and also viewable online. The following is summarised as a response to the Reasons for Appeal as set out above (in short) and in the appellants appeal request. 4.0 Response

- 1) Impact on neighbouring properties

The concerns raised relate to the impact of increased height on shadowing of buildings to the North and increasing need for lighting and reduced potential for rooftop renewable energy. The Officer’s report includes assessment of this, including at 6.18 which considers relative heights. Further

clarification is provided in the Planning Committee (PC) minutes. Given the existing built up nature of the area, height of surrounding buildings, zoning within the development plan and position as a corner plot it is not considered that the height would be out of keeping nor lead to overshadowing impacts which would exceed what might be reasonable expected in that context.

- 2) Impact on Streetscene/Conservation Area These impacts are considered in detail in the Officer’s report (6.14 – 6.21) and PC minutes.
- 3) Embodied Carbon/Potential to Reuse existing building

The Officer’s report considers demolition at 6.6 to 6.13 and Energy Usage at 6.35 to 6.36. Although there would be a loss of embodied carbon on the demolition of any building, it is not considered that this is sufficient grounds for refusal given the wider benefits of the proposal.

- 4) Parking Impacts The Officer’s report considers this (6.22 – 6.34) and there is discussion recorded in the PC Minutes.
- 5) Procedural points about Planning Committee These are noted but not considered matters for the appeal.
- 6) Access to 1-9 Church Street during demolition/construction works

These are not considered to be material to the determination of the application (as per 6.39 of the Officer’s report and the PC Minutes).

In light of the above, no additional or amended conditions are suggested to those originally applied.

### Appendix 2 – Extract from Planning Committee Minutes

|Item 5.3 The Former Salvation Army Citadel Lord Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1LE<br><br>PA23/00616/B|Demolition of the existing former Citadel building, and the erection of a 44 bedroom hotel with associated drainage, refuse bin storage and pick up layby and reinstatement of the adjacent pavements<br><br>Applicant : Hesketh Investments Limited Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Recommendation : Permitted|
|---|---|

The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation, confirming that his report had stated that it was to be a three storey building, whereas in fact it was a four and a half to five storey building. He confirmed that the public footway was to remain at a width of 2m. He advised that the Strategic Plan supported such redevelopment on this type of site, and that he felt this site to be one of the most sustainable on the Island with regard to transport links. He felt it would be a betterment of the conservation area and the street scene as a whole.

The Acting Head of Development Management recommended that the Case Officer amend their recommendation with regard to C5, removing the reference to DOI Highway Services Department and to refer to the covered footway adjacent to the proposed lay-by on Lord Street, as shown on drawing P-01-Rev B, remaining free of obstructions and be appropriately lit for the lifetime of the building. The Case Officer agreed to vary their recommendation in accordance with this. Following discussion, the Members agreed to the amended recommendation with regard to C5.

The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report. The owner/occupier of 1-9 Church Street spoke against the proposal. The points raised were as follows:-

- • Objected to the demolition of a Registered Building and the erection of a new building on the site
- • In his opinion, the existing building is sound and would be capable of conversion
- • The building works would block the access to the lane, which is also blocked at the other end by the approved outside seating area for the Rovers Return
- • As the owner of 1 – 9 Church Street, the area is their private parking area and the development would detrimentally affect their access
- • Retention and conversion of the existing building would comply with Strategic Policy 8
- • The proposal does not comply with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 43

At this point the Chair intervened as the 3 minute time slot allotted under Standing Orders had been exceeded. He advised the party that they would be able to speak for a further 3 minutes during the consideration of the next item as the matters were related, and they had also registered to speak on that item.

The applicant spoke in support of the proposal. The points raised were as follows:-

- • They supported the work which their architect had put into the application, and also the Case Officers report and recommendation
- • The existing building is in poor repair and was not suitable for conversion, which was why the salvation Army had relocated their Citadel
- • Any attempt to convert the building would prove difficult from an engineering standpoint

In response to a question from the Members, the Case Officer confirmed that the registered building application had been required as the proposal was for the demolition of a building in a Conservation Area. It was confirmed the building was not Registered.

The Members expressed that it was a well-balanced report on a difficult case, and while they were mindful that it was important to conserve existing buildings from both a heritage and environmental standpoint, they felt it important to note that the building in question was not a registered building nor of a significant architectural interest. The Members expressed concern that this appeared to be yet another example where a property had been left to fall into irretrievable disrepair after owners had failed in responsibility of care.

While an approval would remove an existing building from a Conservation Area, they felt the design was such that it would enhance the existing streetscene and that the proposal was in line with Government strategy. They further noted that there had been previous permission for the building to be demolished under PA17/00186/B, It was felt that this proposal was an improvement on the approved scheme, with elements such as the red bricks proposed to be used in construction fitting well with the existing streetscene, and that it would revitalise the area.

They understood the objectors concerns with regard to access to their properties, but felt such difficulties could be minimised and would be of a temporary nature and only during the construction phase of the development.

In response to a question from the Members regarding the size of the lay-bye, the Highway Services representative confirmed that it was of suitable size to be used by a large lorry for the purposes of deliveries to the hotel, and that it would also be suitable for use as a drop-off and collection point for coaches.

In response to a question from the Members, the owner/occupier of 1-9 Church street confirmed that the properties were occupied by businesses, that access was require 24/7, that the lane in question was in his ownership and the proposed access encroached upon it.

The Case Officer confirmed that Church Street was an adopted roadway, and that the proposed laybye did not encroach upon it, illustrating this with reference to the visual presentation. He further confirmed that land ownership was a civil matter. The Highway Services representative confirmed that Church Street is an adopted roadway, and that a licence would be required to carry on works on adopted roadways.

In response to a question from the Members, the applicant confirmed that the site will be suitably fenced during the demolition and construction period.

The owner/occupier of 1-9 Church Street reiterated that he owned the lane in question, and that the development would impede his access.

The Members noted the IOM Government mapping shows the road as having a number. The Acting HDM advised that the road having a number does not necessarily mean that the road was adopted.

The Members expressed concern that the lay-by was beside a quite busy road. The Case Officer reported that given the nature of the site and its surrounds, he felt the lay-bye to be acceptable and that he would also have recommended approval of the scheme, even if it did not include a laybye, given the nearby transport links and public parking availability. He advised that a similar arrangement elsewhere in Douglas (Premier Inn) was sometimes used as parking by unauthorised

parties due to its proximity to the shopping centre (M&S), but felt that this would be less of an issue in this location.

In response to a further question from the Members, the Applicant confirmed that a drop-off by coach should not take more than 20 minutes, and that part of the ground floor had been utilised to accommodate a suitable footpath, with the upper floor of the building extending over same.

DECISION The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions.

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

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

- C 2. No development shall commence until a sample details/panel of all external facing materials including roofs, windows, doors, all variations of brickwork proposed, movement/mortar joints, cast stone elements, plant rooms external finishes, standing seam metal cladding and embossed metal panels and cast stone arch / soldier brick arch and soldier brick infill to be used have been erected on site (or an alternative location) and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter.

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

- C 3. Prior to the occupation or operation of the hotel hereby approved all bin and cycle stores are to be completed and ready for use as shown on drawing P02 REV C and retained thereafter for their respective uses. No access gates/doors for bin and cycle storages shall open out onto the public highway. Reason: To ensure adequate bin and cycle storage is provided for the uses of the building.
- C 4. Prior to the occupation or operation of the hotel hereby approved the proposed highway works as shown on drawing P-01-Rev B shall be completed and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and ensure adequate lay-by parking provision is provided.
- C 5. The covered footway adjacent to the proposed lay-by on Lord Street as shown on drawing P-01-Rev B shall remain free of obstructions for the lifetime of the building and details of lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Department and this approved lighting scheme shall be completed prior to the occupation of the hotel and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety
- C 6. The proposed oversailing of the building on Lord Street shall be a minimum of 3.2metres from footway level at its lowest point and a minimum of 600mm offset from the proposed lay-by on Lord Street at any point when measured in parallel between the building and lay-by as shown on drawing P-04 REV B.

Reason; In the interests of highway safety

- C 7. All first floor and above windows (except small square windows on Lord Street elevation) shall be vertical sliding sashes as shown on drawing P-04 REV B, and shall be retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the individual building.

Reason for approval: It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with the relevant planning polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the East 2020, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Climate Change Act 2021, Our Island and Our Future Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS It was decided that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Head of Visit Isle of Man - Tourism (DfE)

It was decided that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):

1-9 Church Street, Douglas 9 Church Street, Douglas

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (2019). ________________________________

---

*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/8986-michael-30-cleiy-rhennee-chimney-retrospective/documents/951776*