19 March 2018 · Delegated
22, North Quay, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 4le
The proposal sought to demolish a pair of part-three and part-five-storey buildings at 22-23 North Quay, Douglas — a structurally sound but tired-looking property within the North Quay Conservation Area — and replace them with a new mixed-use building. The replacement would have provided a restaurant, café, or bar at ground floor, six residential apartments above, a rooftop garden, and three car parking spaces. While the mixed-use principle was broadly acceptable given the site's designation and the Central Douglas Masterplan's support for leisure uses on North Quay, the application failed on several decisive grounds. The proposed layout, scale, and front façade design were judged to cause significant harm to the streetscene and to fail the test of preserving or enhancing the Conservation Area. No justification was provided for demolishing a building that contributes positively to the Conservation Area's character, and no flood risk assessment or mitigation measures were submitted despite the site lying within a flood risk area. The apartment access arrangements also raised unresolved personal safety and security concerns.
The application was refused because the replacement building's design would harm the character of the North Quay Conservation Area and the wider streetscene, the demolition of a contributing building was not justified, no flood risk assessment was provided for a site in a known flood risk area, and the apartment access design failed to address personal safety and security requirements.
Refusal Reasons
Environment Policy 35
Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area
Environment Policy 35: 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. 7.30 Development adjacent to Conservation Areas 7.30.1 It is often the case that important views into and out of a Conservation Area can contribute significantly to its character. It is necessary to assess the impact any development adjacent to conservation areas may have on such views.
Environment Policy 10
Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding
irements of the relevant gas supply agency. Flood Risk 63 There was widespread concern about the adequacy of drainage and the risk of flooding, particularly in parts of Braddan, Onchan and Laxey. Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan indicates that where development is proposed on any site where there is a potential risk of flooding, the prospective developer will be required to submit a flood risk assessment, together with details of proposed mitigation measures. This approach is reinforced in Utilities Proposal 6 of the draft Area Plan, which (among other things) requires the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into new developments, to attenuate the rate of surface water run-off. I consider these policies to be reasonable. Clearly, without adequate mitigation measures, new building should normally be resisted on land which is at serious risk of flooding, or where the proposed development would increase the flood risk elsewhere. 64 In my view, the format of Utilities Proposal 6 could be improved. First, as a Proposal of the Area Plan, I consider that it should be in a bold typeface, to differentiate it from the supporting text. (The same applies to a number of other policies e.g. Transport Policy 2, and Utilities Policies 2 and 5). Second, there appears to be an error of syntax at the start of the second sentence of Utilities Proposal 6, which should perhaps read 'Strategies to achieve this will include …'. Third, the third bullet point of this Proposal introduces SuDS. Subsequent bullet points describe features of SuDS, and are therefore subordinate to the third bullet point. For clarity, I consider that they should be indented. I recommend that the draft Area Plan be modified accordingly. Sewage Treatment 65 There was also some public concern about the adequacy of the sewerage system, both in terms of its capacity to accommodate the effluent from proposed residential development areas, and in terms of the current practice of discharging untreated sewage into the sea. Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan indicates that developments entailing the erection of multiple dwellings should take place only on sites that will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system, which takes sewage to a treatment works at Meary Veg. (IRIS is an acronym for Integration and Recycling of the Island's Sewage). However, as long ago as 2006/7, a review was undertaken to decide whether to continue with the IRIS strategy. This concluded that it would be beneficial to adopt a regional sewage treatment strategy (RSTS) for those settlements that were not already connected to the IRIS system, including Laxey, Baldrine and settlements in the Central Valley. To that extent, Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan is now out of date. 66 I understand that a planning application will soon be submitted for the development of a local sewage treatment facility for Laxey. Feasibility studies for the provision of a similar facility to serve Baldrine are ongoing. A replacement sewage works at Ballagarey, serving part of the Central Valley became operational in 2018. However, capacity limitations mean that planned development in Crosby is likely to have to rely on standalone sewage treatment for the time being, until the existing treatment works is replaced as anticipated in 2022. The Programme for Government (2016-2021) indicates an intention to complete the regional sewage treatment infrastructure within the lifetime of the present administration. 67 It seems to me that these considerations should be taken into account in the allocation and phasing of land for development. I will return to this matter when considering the draft Area Plan's proposals for housing. Electricity Renewable Energy 68 Peel Energy considered that the Area Plan should contain a detailed and specific chapter on renewable energy, providing measurable criteria against which applications for the development of renewable power generating facilities would be assessed. They cited the States of Jersey Island Plan 2011, which includes such material. And they pointed out that a Climate Change Emergency has recently been declared on the Isle of Man; that a Climate Change Bill is soon to be presented to Tynwald; and that there has been strong public support for the Government's Climate Change Mitigation Strategy. They argued that, in failing to provide detailed guidance on renewable power generation, the Area Plan was inconsistent with the Strategic Plan; and that since the Area Plan post-dated the Strategic Plan, its largely negative provisions would prevail. 69 Energy Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan applies to development proposals for renewable energy generated by wind, water, tidal or solar power. It indicates that any such proposals will be judged against that Plan's environmental objectives. Proposals for wind, water or tidal power would need to be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. The supporting text indicates that renewable energy schemes will be given similar scrutiny as is gi
Environment Policy 39
The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area
Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 7.33 Archaeology 7.33.1 Archaeological remains provide irreplaceable evidence of human activity. The Isle of Man's archaeological heritage is the result of human activity over many thousands of years. It is a finite and non-renewable resource and is, in many cases, highly fragile and vulnerable. An understanding and management of the Island's archaeological heritage is essential to ensure it survives in good condition and is not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. It contains irreplaceable information about the history of the Island and is part of our national heritage. Archaeological remains are valuable for their own sake and for their role in education and tourism. As a signatory to the Valetta Convention (The European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage 1992) the Isle of Man has international obligations in the iden tification, recording, protection, conservation and management of its archaeological heritage.
Planning Policy Statement 1/01
general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution
