DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 18/01342/B Applicant: South Quay Commercial Limited Proposal: Demolition of industrial units situated at 31-39 and erection of 38 flats Site Address: 31-39 South Quay South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 17.01.2019 Site Visit: 17.01.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 21.10.2019 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. No apartment shall be occupied at any time unless it has been unallocated at least one of the parking space within the lower ground floor car park as shown on drawing 18.0160.05B and the relevant parking space (or spaces) isis available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s). Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking for each apartment.
• C 4. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or

turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the apartments, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths, railing and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

• C 5. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development a detail plan showing the position, design and 38 Cycle Parking within the site is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department, and this approved scheme is required to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any unit. Reason: To ensure that sufficient Cycle Parking provision is provided.
• C 7. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the bin stores shall each be completed as shown on plan 18.160.05B and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage and cycle storage.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate bin and cycle provision within the site.

• C 8. No development shall commence on site until detailing of demountable flood defences or similar have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate flood protection of the site.
• C 9. The ground floor finished floor levels of each apartment shall be 6.27 AD02 and shall not result in the raising of the ground floor finished floor levels greater than as shown on the submitted plan 18.160.10B.

Reason: In the interests of flood prevention to the ground floor residential apartments as this level would be above the 200 - year (2115) flood level with a sufficient freeboard for residential freeboard; while also ensuring the ground floor finished floor levels and the front elevation of the building are not raised more than shown in the submitted plans in the interest of the visual amenities of the street scene.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 18.160.01A, 18.160.02A, 18.160.03 and 18.160.11A all date stamped as received 22/7/19 18.160.04C and 18.160.05C, both date stamped as received 2/10/19 18.160.06B, 18.160.07A and 18.160.10B all date stamped as received 5/9/19 18.160.12 date stamped as received 23/9/19 18.160.15 date stamped as received 10/10/19

Planning Design Statement REV B date stamped 22/8/19; and the Flood Risk Statement prepard by Kaya Consulting Limited dated 13/9/2019.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons and organisations 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 6(4):

• o Manx Utilities
• o Manx National Heritage
• o The Isle Of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or
• occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy;
• o contributor making comment on Behalf Of Seawall Limited owner of Murdoch Chambers and Murdoch House (Long & Humphrey - The Old Court House, Athol Street, Douglas) -

because Tthe Interest Person Status Order outlines that the level of positive/negative impact is not relevant when considering whether or not someone has sufficient interest to be afforded Interested Person Status (although is relevant in deciding whether or not to grant planning approval), merely that there could be a more than negligible level of impact and. In this case the only reason the objector could be granted such status is due to the comment highlighted in paragraph 6.6.3 regarding overshadowing and, as set out in the report; however for the reason indicated it is considered the proposal would have a negligible level of impact in this regard;and therefore IPS is not recommended to this party.

• o Ballastowel Farm, Vicarage Road, Douglas
• o Highbury, 15 Head Road, Douglas (no comments received on amended plans)

as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or

• occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy;.
• o 6 Taubman Terrace, Douglas
• o 9 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas
• o 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey
• o Ashley Petit Associates, James Place, Victoria Road, Douglas
• o 15 Highfield Crescent, Onchan
• o 1101 S Rolling Road, Baltimire, MD 21238, USA
• o Thie Magher, Homefield Park, Ballasalla
• o The Boat House, Head Road, Douglas
• o Flat 1 The Towers, Fort Anne Road, Douglas
• o Old Timbers, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey

• as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of

land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:

• - THE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO 5 OR MORE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC;
• - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A S.13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO; AND
• - THE APPLICATION WOULD RESULT IN MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of 31-39, South Quay Douglas. It is located to the south of South Quay and north of Douglas Head Road which run along the southern boundary of the site. The site does not include the former Trafalgar public house. - 1.2 Within the site are a total of eight attached industrial styled single storey buildings which are/have been used for a variety of uses including garages, workshops, exhaust and tyre garage, model railway exhibition centre. These buildings and uses have been in place for a number of decades. - 1.3 To the east of the site is the former Clover Asphalt Depot which is a parcel of previously developed land, a flat area of concrete hardstanding throughout, due to the original building being cleared from the site, which is currently used as a temporary car park. To the west of the site is the former Trafalgar public house (now a residential dwelling).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the demolition of industrial units situated at 31-39 and erection of 38 flats. The application initially also proposed to demolish the former Trafalgar public house; however, this no longer forms part of the application site or the development. - 2.2 The proposed building varies in height from four storeys to seven storeys (including basement level). It is lower at either end (east and west) and gradually increases (stepped) in height to the centre part of the site. The building would mainly be finished in a variety of brickworks and colours, as well as large sections of glazing; especially the seventh floor (top) which is finished entirely of glazed sections. - 2.3 The proposed car park would be located ½ a storey below road level and would be accessed via a new vehicular access into the site from the west side of the site. This would include a new ramp down into the lower ground floor (basement) where a car park is proposed. This would accommodate 50 standard spaces, (including 3 disabled spaces) and 3 dedicated areas for cycle racks. An additional vehicle exit is proposed to the western end of the site and again this would include a ramp up from the car park to road level. The "in and out" arrangement of the new access/exit creates an internal one way system within the car park. - 2.4 To the rear of the proposed building and between the rear cliff face, it is proposed to create a landscaped garden for residents of the development. This garden would site above the basement car park.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the determination of this application:

• Approval in principle for residential development - 16/01013/A - APPROVED - This application had little in the way of any detail and all matters where reserved for any future Reserved Matters application. Such application was never submitted.

- 4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS

4.2 The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998

• 4.2.1 The application site is mainly within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but the site is adjacent/near to a Conservation Area which runs along North Quay to the north of the site.

4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016)

• 4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.

• 4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
• 4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is:

"To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."

• 4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.
• 4.3.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

• 4.3.6 Strategic Policy 2 states:

"New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph

• 6.3."

• 4.3.7 Strategic Policy 3:

"Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

• 4.3.8 Strategic Policy 5 states:

"New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

• 4.3.9 Strategic Policy 10 states:

"New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement"

• 4.3.10 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."
• 4.3.11 General Policy 2 states:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

• 4.3.12 General Policy 4 states:

"Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may:

• (a) restrict the use of land;
• (b) require land to be used in a particular way;
• (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land;
• (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or;

• (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed."

• 4.3.13 Environment Policy 10 states:

"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, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

• 4.3.14 Environment Policy 13 states:

"Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."

• 4.3.15 Environment Policy 36 states:

"Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."

• 4.3.16 Environment Policy 42 states:

"New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

• 4.3.17 Environment Policy 43 states:

"The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."

• 4.3.18 Housing Policy 1 states:

"The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026."

• 4.3.19 Housing Policy 4 states:

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

• 4.3.20 Housing Policy 5 states:

"In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."

• 4.3.21 Recreation Policy 3 states:

"Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

• 4.3.22 Recreation Policy 4 states:

"Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."

• 4.3.23 Community Policy 10 states,

"Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes".

• 4.3.24 Transport Policy 1 states,

"New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".

• 4.3.25 Transport Policy 2 states:

"The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."

• 4.3.26 Transport Policy 4 states,

"The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

• 4.3.27 Transport Policy 6 states:

"In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

• 4.3.28 Transport Policy 7 states:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."

4.4 The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014)

• 4.4.1 The Masterplan is not a statutory document in itself, although it was approved by Tynwald. It was intended that it would be a material consideration in the determination of applications and be reviewed for inclusion in the Area Plan for the East. The Masterplan

introduced a series of Character Areas that reflected the existing nature and uses of particular areas of Douglas town centre while identifying opportunities for growth and evolution. These Character Areas remain relevant and have been used as a basis for the Area Plan Proposals.

• 4.4.2 The Site is within an area known as "Quayside" under the plan. Project Proposals for the site include:

"QS4 Evolution from light industrial uses and garaging to residential, with awareness of South Quay as a key transport route. Exit strategy needed for relocation of existing uses convenient to the town centre

The South Quay offers fantastic opportunity to create a Marina that is a centre piece for Douglas. Whilst the North Quay prospers the South Quay offers scope to improve the overall look and feel of the area by the suggested relocation of industries within this area, and the growth of the residential offer. Sites within the Riverside Area have been identified to allow relocation of the garages and lower end uses."

4.5 The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018 Consultation - pre enquiry)

• 4.5.1 The front section of the site which contained the majority of the development is within a Distinct Mixed Use area under the draft plan and specifically Mixed Use Area 7. The rear section of the site which part of the basement car park and rear landscaped gardens to the rear of the main building, are within an area designated as "Predominantly Residential." and which includes this site and three other sites in the immediate area to the north and east of site.

• 4.5.2 Mixed Use Area 7 "The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern site which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged.

Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 7 There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay.

There will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay, including the potential re-positioning of the highway of South Quay between Old Castletown Road and Fort Anne Road, for new uses in the following categories:

• o Tourism
• o Offices
• o Food and Drink
• o Leisure
• o Reception and function venues
• o Business hubs/share-service offices
• o Residential uses at first floor level and above."

• 4.5.4 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states:

"Development proposals, particularly in respect of Douglas Town Centre, which are contemporary in style and which clearly demonstrate innovative design solutions which enhance local character and distinctiveness will generally be supported."

• 4.5.5 Transport Proposal 1

• "Development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan."
• 4.6 ACTIVE TRAVEL STRATEGY 2018 - 2021 (Approved May 2018 - Minister of Department of Infrastructure) "The long-term vision for the Isle of Man is: to be an Island where cycling and walking are normal and realistic transport choices for people of all ages and abilities. One of the main ways in which to achieve this vision will be to increase the number of people travelling actively.

Active travel is defined as "walking or cycling (including the use of electric bicycles) as an alternative to motorised transport (cars, buses, motorcycles etc) for the purpose of making everyday journeys. The Department will incorporate terms such as "walking" or "walker" as a generic term to include running as well as non-motorised uses for instance wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, mobility scooters and other mobility aids, scooters and other means of selfpropulsion".

This strategy will be delivered by way of an action plan with identified tasks. The action plan will be prepared in collaboration with the officer group and the Department's appointed consultants who will assist and advise on whether what is proposed is likely to make a difference to levels of participation for people travelling actively."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

• 5.0.1 It should be noted that after initially comments received, the applicants significantly changed the scheme (including excluding the Trafalgar public house) in response and therefore, any comments before the 22nd July 2019 relate to the initial scheme and those after that date relate to the current amended scheme. Government Departments

5.1 DOI Highways Services initially (29.09.2017) objected to the application for the following grounds: "Highway Comments: Due to the size of the development and the proposed mix of uses, a Transport Statement (TS) must be submitted to properly examine the transport impacts in sufficient detail. The 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide on the Isle of Man Government website contains further information on the requirements for a TS and highway design matters which should be reviewed. The proposed parking should be assessed against the parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016'.

Summary Highway Services opposes the application as a Transport Statement has not been submitted to examine the highway impacts of the development.

Recommendation: O"

• 5.1.2 After amended plans being submitted Highway Services, commented (09.09.2019) that the threshold for a Transport Statement for a residential development is 50 dwellings so they did not now need one for this development of 38 flats. Additionally more comments where received which stated (18.10.2019):

"An initial highway response was provided on 7th February 2019 stating an objection due to the lack of a Transport Assessment (TA). The application was subsequently amended to its current form whereby 38 apartments were proposed and a highway response was provided on 17th September 2019 which stated that due to the changes in the proposals a TA was no longer required but an objection was made in relation to access visibility, amount of on-site car parking, layout of car parking, headroom in the car park and access gradients. The report stated that swept path analysis would be required for vehicles making a left turn in and a left turn out. It was also mentioned that a Section 109A Agreement would need to be entered into

for access construction and advise was given in relation to the lack of suitability of the cycle parking.

The applicant provided updated information on 27th September 2019 which included a revised car parking layout, an indication of the achievable access visibility, clarification in relation to headroom and confirmation about the gradient and the use of the access ramps.

The 2.4m 43m visibility splay to the west is acceptable; the 2.4m x 43m visibility splay to the east has been incorrectly drawn but nonetheless this visibility can be achieved.

It is now proposed that there would be 52 car parking spaces of an acceptable size and layout. The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 1 car parking space for a

• 1 bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces for a 2+ bedroom dwelling. The required parking standards are as follows:

• o 9 no. 1 bed flats - 9 spaces
• o 27 no. 2 bed flats - 54 spaces
• o 2 no. 3 bed flats - 4 spaces This equates to a total requirement of 67 spaces for the development to comply with the parking standards. It is however acknowledged that the site is on the edge of the town centre where good public transport provision and facilities exist; it is thereby considered that for the 2 bedroom apartments a reduced average allowance of 1.5 spaces would be acceptable. This relaxation of the standard would result in a requirement of 53.5 spaces; however, the proposed 52 spaces would be acceptable. The developer may wish to have 1 allocated space per unit and have the remaining 14 spaces unallocated which again would be acceptable. It should be noted that the existing industrial units have significantly substandard car parking and the proposed development would provide an overall improvement to the current situation. The headroom issue in the car park has now been clarified and resolved.

The access of pedestrians and those with disabilities to and from the car park has now been resolved. The vehicular access ramps would have a gradient of 1:8 which is significantly steeper than the normally prescribed maximum of 1:12; however this is more critical to downward gradients towards the highway in wet or icy conditions, therefore this is not considered to present a significant highway safety issue. The change of gradient between the ramp and footway could present 'grounding' of vehicles and the applicant should consider this

• at detailed design stage.

The vehicular access ramps would comprise a 3m wide one-way ramp into the basement car park and a 3m wide one-way exit only route. A swept path analysis has now been provided to show that the left turn into the car park and the left turn out of it are feasible without encroaching over the centreline of South Quay. It is noted that the vehicle used to demonstrate this turning movement is only 4.22m long which is relatively short. Car parks would not normally be required to cater for abnormally sized cars such as stretched limos but should be able to accommodate a normal large car such as the standard wheelbase Jaguar XJ which is 5.13m long. However by moving the exiting vehicle further to the east within the ramp it is believed that a safe turning movement for a larger car can be achieved. The exit ramp has a 45 degree turn at the lower end and a swept path analysis has not been undertaken. Whilst the lane for the ramp is indicated to be 3.0m wide the distance between walls is measured to be 3.4m, which should allow access for most normal sized cars but the developer may which to ensure that this can be achieved.

It was mentioned in the 17th September highway report that gates or barriers would not be acceptable at the site car park entrance. The proposals now state that there would be no gates with the exception of flood control measures; which is now acceptable.

The Manual for Manx Roads MfMR specifies that 1 cycle parking space be provided per dwelling which is a total requirement of 38 cycle parking spaces for the development. The plans indicate

that 17 cycles would be stored in 3 locations (51 total), each with an area of around 2.2m x

• 2.2m; by using conventional cycle stands this area could only accommodate 4 cycles; 12 in total. A conventionally parked cycle requires a length of around 2.0 with cycle stands spaced at 1.0m centres, with 0.6m at either end. Whilst the MfMR does not provide details in relation to the provision of cycle parking, a development such as this in a sustainable location, with reduced car parking would normally be expected to provide a serviceable standard of cycle parking. Often in these developments cycles are secured within a purpose built cycle store. As stated in the previous highway report the cycle storage areas generally do not have adequate manoeuvring room to allow residents to easily use the spaces. The cycle parking as proposed is not acceptable and needs to be reconsidered.

An issue of possible encroachment onto the highway was raised in the previous highway report and the applicant has acknowledged that they will ensure in the detailed design process that this will not occur; any balconies that overhang the highway would be subject to a Section 69 highway licence.

The applicant would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement in relation to access onto the highway and drainage issues can be addressed in this process. The potential issue of grounding of vehicles at the ramp/ footway interface can be addressed at that stage.

Please attach the following condition to any future consent:

Prior to the development commencing details of cycle storage facilities shall be submitted and approved in writing. The cycle storage facilities shall be constructed prior to the development becoming occupied.

Reason: to promote alternative modes of travel and support active travel. Recommendation: DNOC"

5.2 Public Estates and Housing (DOI) make the following comments (04.01.2019): "We refer to the aforementioned application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the Shared Waiting List for Douglas and the East indicates that there are 405 persons seeking affordable housing to rent. There are also 52 persons on the active first-time buyers register wishing to purchase a first home in Douglas or the East of the Island. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

In this case, the Department would request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide a Commuted Sum in lieu of Affordable Housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. At present, the Department does not support the sale or letting of apartments to first-time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold, as costs such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them. This does not apply to freehold apartments, only those which are leasehold.

Accordingly, the applicant should contact the Department to discuss and agree the Commuted Sum for the 9.25 Affordable Housing Units.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."

Other Consultees

5.3 Douglas Borough Council initially sought a deferral (11.01.2019) to allow time for the Councils Environmental Services Committee to comment. They made further comments which can be summarised as (21.02.2019): Objection, the proposed development and finish of the building is not in keeping with the surrounding street scenes and concern about the mass of the building and the detrimental effect that would have on existing amenities of the area. Following amended plans being submitted DBC sought a further deferral (01.08.2019) till the 16th September so the Councils Environmental Services Committee could comment further. The Dilapidation Enforcement Officer (who deals with planning applications for DBC) did provide additional comments and questions relating to bin provision and how it would be collected from the site, which results in the applicants providing additional/amended plans. This waste provisions was approved by DBC Waste Services Management Team.

• 5.3.1 The Councils Environmental Services Committee provided final comments (17.09.2019) which stated: "The above application was placed before the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 16/09/19. Following consideration of the application the Committee resolved that Douglas Borough Council supports the application and requests that if the development is approved it should be subject to the following conditions.

• 1) The applicant appoints an agent to undertake the movement of the refuse bins from the carpark area to the bin storage at ground floor level at times to be agreed with the local authority.
• 2) That the applicant continues discussions with the Council's Waste Services Management Team regarding the storage of recycling receptacles and the collection of.
• 3) That any approval granted be subject to an acceptable flood risk analysis and no objection from the Manx Utilities Authority.
• 4) That no objection is received from the Department of Infrastructure's Highways Services Division regarding access and egress of the site including traffic and pedestrian safety.
• 5) That an engineer's report is obtained outlining the suitability of the cliff face to maintain its integrity.

The Council would also request that the applicant gives consideration to the following: Design Guide - Affordable Housing Standards

Refuse Disposal 2,4.12e Kitchens should be supplied and fitted with a 3 compartment waste bin suitable for segregating the key waste for recycling.

That the applicant gives consideration to the suitability of the bicycle storage areas and ensures that the provisions meet the recommendations of the Secured by Design Homes 2019 standards.

The Council also wishes to express its disappointment at the lack of comprehensive information which should have been part of the application and made available for public scrutiny."

5.4 Manx National Heritage (23.01.2019) objected to the initial application on the following summarised grounds: no recognition of the specific character of the harbour and river; retention of key structures is important as it creates a framework for both height and mass, in this case the Trafalgar establishes a reference point for the height of any new development and being at the end of the block also provides a very satisfactory visual solution and focal point; the proposal is alien and aggressive in this context, both in mass and height and finish and style as traditional is patently misinformed; The Trafalgar is likely to have potential to support roosting bats and therefore a bat survey should be provided before any demolition.

• 5.4.1 No additional comments were received from Manx National Heritage following the amended scheme.

5.5 Manx Utilities (drainage) initially sought a deferral (08.01.2019) whilst they consider the scheme. They then provided the following comments (16.01.2019); "The above planning application proposes alterations to a property that lies within a tidal flood zone as per the attached flood map. This map indicates the predicted extent of tidal flooding for a 1 in 200 year return period plus climate change.

To assess the appropriateness of this development Manx Utilities have found it necessary to request that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is carried out in support of this planning application. To assist the applicant we have attached some guidance on what our requirements are for the detailed FRA and this site. It should be noted that completion of the FRA does not guarantee approval of the application.

The development proposals will comprise a mixture of 'More Vulnerable' and 'Less Vulnerable' uses. It is considered that the residential elements of the proposals will constitute 'More Vulnerable' uses, whilst commercial and retail elements will be classified as 'Less Vulnerable' uses. The proposals has allocated sleeping accommodation on the first floor or above. Planning approval should come with the condition that only 'Less Vulnerable' uses are to be situated on the ground floor and it should remain this way throughout the development's lifetime.

Manx Utilities have a preference against basement car parking within tidal zone we will need the FRA to provide more information on how flood risk to the basement and general development with be mitigated against."

• 5.5.1 Following these comments and the amended/additional information provided from the applicants (including a Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment Report dated 13th September 2019) MU made the following comments (16.09.2019):

"We have reviewed the FR letter submitted by the applicant. It has used predicted flood levels for England and Wales for 200-year (2100). The Isle of Man currently uses the 200-year (2115) predicted extreme sea level.

For Douglas this is 5.46mAD02. We recommend an additional 300mm freeboard for commercial developments. This would mean a recommendation of 5.77mAD02. If this level is not feasible or other does not satisfy other planning requirements we ask for details and what other resilience measures are being put in position instead. Such measures might include property protection flood gates and walls; ensuring that all electric points are located above flood levels; tiling of floor coverings; cement sand render; adding salt additives to lime plaster; adding waterproof grout ect.

I also make note levels have been provided in mAOD. The Isle of Man uses m Above Douglas

• 02 Datum (mAD02).

These factors need to be considered by the applicant before we make comment. Happy to discuss with them directly if further clarification is required."

• 5.5.2 Following these comments the Department sought calcification that Manx Utilities where aware that the amended scheme did not include any "Commercial" usage and that it was all residential. Manx Utilities in response stated:

"Yes it does change the response and thank you for pointing this out - I had not appreciated it was now for apartments. This changes the use to 'More Vulnerable' from a flood risk perspective.

For residential we recommend an additional freeboard of 600mm or a planning condition that only 'Less Vulnerable' uses are to be situated on the ground floor and it should remain this way throughout the development's lifetime. I.e no sleeping accommodation on the bottom floor."

• 5.5.3 Following a number of emails between the applicants, Manx Utilities and the Department the applicant's confirmed (17.09.2019) that:

"Finished Floor Levels in the building should be set above the 1 in 200 year + climate change flood level + 0.3m freeboard, i.e., 5.77m AD02. We understand that floor levels will be set 6.27m AD02, above the required floor level."

• 5.5.4 Manx Utilities commented (17.09.2019) that; "If the finished floor levels are 6.27m AD02 then this would be above the 200 - year (2115) flood level with a sufficient freeboard for residential freeboard. "
• 5.5.5 Furthermore the applicant's confirmed (17.09.2019): "We can confirm that the elevational plans will not require any alterations accommodate the requirements set out by Manx Utilities."
• 5.5.6 It was hoped at this stage the issue had been resolved, although discussions with Manx Utilities and the Department a concern of basement car parking in high risk flood zone was raised. And a subsequent email was sent to the Department which stated (17.09.2019):

"As discussed on the phone below ground level or basement car parking in a high risk flood zone is not appropriate and we recommend that the proposed application is altered or declined. We had not appreciated that this was the case and understood the finish flood level to be the bottom of the building."

• 5.5.7 Since this issue, the applicants have provided additional plans which show how varies flood defences could be installed into the building which would prevent flood waters into the basement car park. This information was received by the Department on the 10.10.19 and views where sought from Manx Utilities by the 21.10.19. At the time of writing this report no further comments have been received.
• 5.5.8 Additional Manx Utilities (drainage) also made the additional comments (19.02.2019); "Manx Utilities has a crucial section of foul drainage infrastructure that runs from Head Road underneath unit 31 South Quay and under the Douglas Marina onto North Quay.

Without extensive modelling of this section of the Douglas network, it is not known whether the sewer can be easily diverted and may have to remain insitu (subject to necessary protection measures), therefore it is requested that the applicant's engineer contacts Manx Utilities at an early stage post any subsequent approval on this application to discuss these options."

Other Representations - Please note all comments are in relation to initial scheme unless stated otherwise.

5.6 The Isle Of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (18.02.2019) object to the initial application which can be summarised as; demolition of Trafalgar Houses and replacement with the proposal reflects no part of the local architectural and would be totally out of place in this key locality; recognise the redevelopment of the warehouses would be beneficial in principle; however the design should take account of the anchor building at the corner providing interest in the variety of styles and proportionate heights which are also features on the North Quay Conservation Area which this site faces; and contrary to GP2, EP36 and EP42. No comments to amended scheme.

5.7 There have been a total of 13 individual objections to this application and the details of which can be views on the Online Planning Services. As mention the initial application was amended. Accordingly, the following addresses of the person's objected to the initial scheme:

• o Ballastowel Farm, Vicarage Road, Douglas (22.01.2019);
• o 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey (13.05.2019);
• o Flat 1 The Towers, Fort Anne Road, Douglas (01.03.2019);
• o On Behalf Of Seawall Limited owner of Murdoch Chambers and Murdoch House (Long & Humphrey - The Old Court House, Athol Street, Douglas (02.04.2019 & 23.08.2019);
• o The Boat House, Head Road, Douglas (08.01.2019);
• o 9 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas (24.01.2019);
• o Thie Magher, Homefield Park, Ballasalla (04.01.2019);
• o Ashley Petit Associates, James Place, Victoria Road, Douglas (18.01.2019);
• o 1101 S Rolling Road, Baltimire, MD 21238, USA (05.01.2019);
• o Highbury, 15 Head Road, Douglas (22.01.2019);
• o 15 Highfield Crescent, Onchan (24.01.2019);
• o 6 Taubman Terrace, Douglas (25.01.2019); and
• o Old Timbers, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey (28.01.2019);

• 5.7.2 The main material planning objections to the INITIAL planning application made the

owners/occupiers of the properties listed within paragraph 5.7 of this report are summarised as:

• o Contrary to Douglas Master Plan Policies;
• o Proposal is contrary to residential designation;
• o Contrary to EP 36 & 42 due to mass and design of building and due to loss of Trafalgar;
• o Loss of a landmark building;
• o Over development of site;
• o Design and finish intrusive and unimaginative;
• o Will cause significant traffic congestion;
• o Inadequate parking provision for office, gym and wine bar;
• o Scale, height and mass fails to fit in with character of area;
• o Basement parking will flood;
• o Trafalgar should be retained;
• o Loss of light; and
• o Underground car park would need to be dug into sheer rock, hence why no other developments in the area have taken place; and
• o Pollution issues of locating residential properties next to busy roads.

• 5.7.3 The following parties who initially made comments also made additional comments to the amended scheme:

• o On Behalf Of Seawall Limited owner of Murdoch Chambers and Murdoch House (Long & Humphrey - The Old Court House, Athol Street, Douglas (23.08.2019);
• o 9 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas (19.08.2019);
• o 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey (07.08.2019);
• o 15 Highfield Crescent, Onchan (22.08.2019); and
• o 6 Taubman Terrace, Douglas (18.08.2019 & 29.08.2019).

• 5.7.4 The main material planning objections to the AMENDED planning application made the owners/occupiers of the properties listed within paragraph 5.7.3 of this report are summarised as:

• o Pleased to see Trafalgar retained;
• o Out of keeping with South Quay;

• o Manx Utilities require Flood Risk Assessment;
• o Insufficient parking spaces provided, a total of 67 spaces required, but only 50 provided;
• o Structural concerns of the development;
• o Confusion of wording of amended planning statements still refers to the demolition of the Trafalgar (it should be noted this was an error and the applicants amended the planning statement soon after);
• o Objections still remain in terms of the design, and isn't sympathetic with surrounding building;
• o Impact views from opposite Conservation Area;
• o Contrary to HP17 and while accept is not a conversion the principle should apply to the new scheme;
• o Contrary to SP3 as it is out of character with the local street scene;
• o Finishes not in keeping with the rest of South Quay;
• o Will overshadow result in loss of light;
• o Will cause significant traffic congestion;
• o Contrary to Manual for Manx Roads in terms of parking spaces;
• o Is affordable housing provided on site; and
• o The number of new dwellings has recently been questioned.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Key Issues

• 6.1.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determining of this application are as set out below.

• 6.1.2 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows:

• o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,3,5,10 SP1, GP 2, HP1, HP4, QS4 DMP and MUA 7 TAPE);
• o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 3);
• o Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area/neighbouring Registered Building (EP36, StP4(a) and EP42);
• o Affordable housing provision (GP4, HP5);
• o Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22, GP2(g));
• o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8);
• o Flood risk (GP2(l) & EP10 &13);
• o Open Space provision (GP4, RP3 & RP4);
• o Fire Risk (CP10 & 11);

6.2 Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,3,5,10 SP1, GP 2, HP1, HP4, QS4 DMP and MUA 7 TAPE);

• 6.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The proposed scheme is for 38 residential apartments only. It is considered the proposal would comply with the land used designation of the adopted and extant Douglas Local Plan.

• 6.2.2 It is also noted that the proposed mixed uses would meet the current Draft Area Plan for the East land use designation currently proposed on this site. Whilst limited weight can be attached to the draft plan at this stage, it is acknowledged that the "direction of travel" of the draft plan, would be met by the proposal in terms of uses as outline in "Mixed Used Proposal
• 7". Again the proposal would flow with the guidelines of the Douglas Master Plan, which itself has been incorporated into the Draft Area Plan for the East.

• 6.2.3 Accordingly, the use proposed would comply with the Local Plan, IOMSP, Draft Area Plan for the East and Douglas Master Plan and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable and comply with the relevant IOMSP polices.

6.3 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP 3 & 5, GP2, EP 42 & 43)

• 6.3.1 Arguably this is one of the main issues with the proposal given its significant overall size and prominent location. The separate but related issue of the potential impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area is considered separately. This section therefore focuses on the general appearance of the building within the street scenes.

• 6.3.2 There are considered to be a number of potential locations where the development would be apparent from a number of public views from all directions (north, east, south & west). Each of the above views is considered in more detail below. Northern Views

• 6.3.3 The northern elevation is the aspect that will in the main be visible when travelling along South Quay and from North Quay. Further, this is the section of the proposal which has the greatest mass and scale of the overall building. The proposal will significantly alter the character and appearance of this section of South Quay, which currently, with eight low lying industrial units (similar to 1 ½ storeys in height) with a back drop of the cliff face to the south of the site and/or to some extent some of the residential/industrial/office buildings along Douglas Head Road.
• 6.3.4 Whilst the lower ground floor basement parking is essentially set ½ a storey below the road level, in essence the building would more likely to appear between 4 and 6 storeys in height. To put into context the proposal at its heights point would be approximately 1 ½ storey above the Trafalgar. It should be noted that the section of the new build attached to the Trafalgar, is set below the roof ridge (approx. 1m), which essential acts as a transition between the Trafalgar and the rest of the building, which consequently gradually increases in height away from the Trafalgar, with the tallest aspect being 19m away. A further useful guide to judge the height of the new building in its context is utilising the levels of the neighbouring property 15 Head Road which sites to the south east of the site. The tallest section of the building would be approximately at first floor level of this three half storey property (Nr 15).
• 6.3.5 As mentioned the introduction of a building of this mass and height will dramatically increase the amount of built form on the site and change the appearance of the site considerably. It is likely from North Quay, the majority of views of the cliffs to the south of the site would be lost; albeit not totally. Certainly from South Quay such views would be lost and replaced with the proposed imposing building given its height and width.
• 6.3.6 Notwithstanding this, the 8 existing industrial units detract from the visual appearance of the quayside and are not forms of development (or uses) which are considered appropriate. Evidence of this is the fact that the existing and proposed local plans have or are continuing to encourage the redevelopment of the site for uses other than industrial. It is therefore considered this aspect of the development is beneficial to the site, area and Douglas as a whole.
• 6.3.7 Turning back to the proposed impact of the new building, it is clear from visiting the site and the whole of South Quay, there is a variety of styles, design and finishes, with the main buildings of interest along South Quay being the Trafalgar (four storeys painted render), Murdoch House/Murdoch (2 and 4 storey brick building) and Swan House (4 storey building finished in render and brick). The remainder of building are differing industrial style buildings. The main common features of buildings along South Quay (excluding industrial buildings) is the vertical proportion and the use of brickwork in the main, with sections of render in other parts.

• 6.3.8 In terms of the proposal, this continues this strong vertical proportioned feature, with the uses of vertically proportion windows, and four projections sections (including brick detailing) throughout the front façade. This vertical proportion is important as this is replicate in old and new buildings within the Quayside, albeit mainly North Quay given South Quay is made up of more industrial styled buildings other than those listed. Accordingly, in terms of finishes of the proposal, which is made up of brick works of different colours and detailing details, it is considered the proposal would be appropriate and when viewed from the north of the site, would fit well. The windows and doors appear to be finished in an anthracite colour and the top floor penthouse (two apartments) would be finishes with large amounts of glazing and an anthracite window frames. This again would be a new feature in the South Quay, albeit, a similar design feature/finish was approved to the top floor of the development on Lord Street recently, so not necessary unique.
• 6.3.9 In relation to its height and mass, it is acknowledged this would result in the tallest building along South Quay currently; albeit across the Quayside on North Quay the recently approved Lord Street development would have a similar height, that having a height of 20.5m and this proposal having a maximum height of 20.2m. Further, it is considered that the proposal would be an acceptable form of development because:

• o it has a varied height which steppes up from its boundaries with the Trafalgar and neighbouring site to the east (had permission for a five storey building - 08/00221/B);
• o the height of the building in relation to the neighbouring properties (east & west) would be similar/lower;
• o the top floor would be made up of a penthouse finished with large amounts of glazing and setback from the front, sides and rear elevations of the building, which would reduce the impact of this top floor level, especially with the glazing sections appearing black (when lights are not on) which will help blend into the rear dark coloured cliff faces and reduce overall impact of the building when views from the north of the site;
• o the front elevation has projection sections to break up its mass and add interest, which would also help give a break of the large mass of the building;
• o the uses of different brick colours/detailing;
• o the backdrop of large cliffs faces and the proposal would not break the skyline;
• o the proposal removes a larger amount of existing built form on the site which adversely affects the appearance of the area; and
• o the reasons indicated in paragraph 6.3.8.

• 6.3.10 Overall, for these reasons it is concluded that when viewing the site to the north, the proposal would significantly increase the amount of built development on the site, it is considered the appearance, form, mass, finish and overall design would be appropriate form of development. Eastern Views
• 6.3.11 Views from the east of the site would be mainly from Parade Street and when crossing over the Swing Bridge and then travelling along South Quay, towards the site. The eastern elevation of the building is the aspect that would be most noticeable. This elevation arguably has the least architectural interest, which is perhaps understandable as it directly faces the neighbouring underdevelopment site which potential would be development and then the eastern elevation of the proposal would very likely be screened from public view. The elevation is made up of a number of blank walls, which taken account of the stepped nature of the development. Overall, given these reasons it is considered acceptable. Western Views
• 6.3.12 Views from the west would namely be from South Quay and more distance views from Bridge Street. Again, similar to the eastern elevation, this is made up mainly of blank gable end walls. The difference being the Trafalgar building sits essential between such public views of the site and therefore only the upper sections would be apparent. Perhaps this aspect is arguably where the proposal and the Trafalgar would not site comfortably, as the gable

elevation of a more square form, would site partially above the pitched roof of the Trafalgar. However, this awkward feature would not be especially prominent, nor a significant feature in the street scene.

Southern Views

• 6.3.13 Such views are from Douglas Head to the rear of the site (south) which run steeply from South Quay up Fort Anne Road towards Douglas Head Road. Currently, due to the topography of the road, in relation to the site, views from the Fort Anne Road are off the roofs of the 8 industrial units. The entire roadside boundary of the site with Douglas Head Road is made up of a 2.2m high steel palisade fence which has a detrimental impact (should the application be approved a new fence should be provided via a condition). The proposed building will clear interrupt views of the Quayside, namely North Quay from this location; although the existing fence already has an intrusive affect upon such views; albeit views can be seen through the fence. The rear elevation of the building (south) and the rear landscaped areas would be apparent from public views. This elevation does not have the same level of architectural interest as the front elevation; albeit its does still have some interest, with the continued use of different coloured brick work; vertically proportioned windows, large section of glazing (stairwells) set back from rear façade and other floor to ceiling glazed sections (bedrooms); all of which add interest and help break up the mass of the building, albeit it is acknowledged again, the appearance of the building from Fort Anne Road would be significant and would dramatically change the appearance of this section of Fort Anne Road. Further up Fort Anne Road/Douglas Head Road, the impact would likely to be unnoticeable, as exiting 2/3 storey residential dwellings of Nrs 15 to 25 Douglas Head Road would likely screen the majority of the development. Conclusion (Views)
• 6.3.14 It is acknowledged that design can be a very subjective matter and likely that the overall design approach of this development will not be to everyone's taste. However, it is important when dealing planning applications to try to consider design as objectively as possible. In the various differing contexts of each elevation of the building, it is considered the proposal presents a well thought-out design approach which overall would sit well within the various street scenes mentions and beyond for instance more distant views to the east and west. In conclusion, this application is considered to be successful in design terms as it has included more traditional features and finishes found within the immediate area, whilst giving a more contemporary design approach. What results is an interesting and quality development which fits well within the area. Therefore it is considered the proposals would comply with the relevant polices listed in terms of design.

6.4 Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area (StP4(a) & EP36)

• 6.4.1 The site is immediately opposite/adjacent to North Quay Conservation Area. EP34 requires that development will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.

• 6.4.2 This section of the Conservation Area has a mixture of buildings in terms, of design, finished, scales and mass. For instance there is the four storey traditional Douglas Hotel building, then the single storey Manx Legion and Market Hall (also registered Building and brick finish), The British pub which has an "Arts and Craft" styled (including brick finishes); a four storey Victorian terrace with orate detailing and then the Manx Stone finishes St Mathews Church. What is clear is that all these buildings are different in almost all respects. Accordingly, when the new development is viewed in the context of these properties i.e. the ones closest to the site; it is considered the new development would be read as the continuation of quality built development along this section of the North Quay and would not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area, rather would have the qualities to fit well with the adjacent Conservation Area. Further, views from North Quay to South Quay are current a mixture of industrial building or undeveloped sites and therefore the development would vastly improve this aspect. Further, as mention early in this report the

building of interest on South Quay are in the main brick in finish; so again the proposal would continue this feature; albeit in a more contemporary way.

• 6.4.3 Significant consideration also needs to be had of the current situation. It is considered that the existing site's appearance has a detrimental impact on the important views out of the Conservation Area.

• 6.4.4 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with EP36.

6.5 Affordable housing provision (GP4, HP 5)

• 6.5.1 As outlined by Housing Policy 5 there is generally that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing to developments of 8 dwellings or more. In this case there are 38 apartments and therefore 9.25 of these should be affordable.

• 6.5.2 However, as set out in DOI Public Estates and Housing Division comments, at present, the Housing Division does not support the sale or letting of apartments to first-time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold, as costs such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them. This does not apply to freehold apartments, only those which are leasehold. Accordingly, they have sought a commuted sum payment is made, rather than provide the units within the building. The applicants have indicated that this is acceptable and therefore a Section 13 Legal Agreement could be undertaken to ensure the sum is paid in lieu of affordable housing provision. This would equate to £402,725.
• 6.6 Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22, GP2(g)); 6.6.1 The main residential property likely to be affected by the development would be Nr 15 Douglas Head Road, which is approximately 22.8m to the south/southeast of the development. The topography of the area is such that Nr 15 ground level appears to be approximately four storeys above that of the application site (approximately 14m). This property to its rear elevation is four storeys in height (accommodation within roof space) and has a bay window which runs from ground level to second floor level. The impacts of the development would mainly relate to the impact upon the windows within this bay, as ground floor windows serve a kitchen dining room and the first floor windows serve a main living rooms; both of with are primary habitable rooms. The windows within the bay windows at second floor window serve a bedroom, which is a habitable room. The nearest part of the new building would be the south eastern corner of the building (approx 23m away) which is 4 storeys in height (14.3m high). The submitted plans do include a topographical survey of the site and surrounding roads, including Fort Anne Road up to the boundaries of Nr 15. Accordingly, it appears from the sectional drawings/elevational drawings that the top (flat roof) of this section of the new building would be approximately at ground level around the dwelling of Nr 15, and therefore the finished floor level of Nr 15 would be above this level. It is also important to note that Nr 15 is slightly angled away from the site, facing a more north-easterly direction and therefore direct views from this property are generally more towards the Lord Street site. However, this is not to say views are no obtainable, they are, and when looking from the bay windows (especially the first floor living room) views of the quay and North Quay will be blocked by this development. However, the loss of a view is not a material consideration and it is not considered the overall impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. It was also noted when visiting Nr 15 that mature landscaping existing along its rear boundary and therefore views of the development from the kitchen would likely be screened. Of course it is accepted this could be removed lowered; however it is still not considered the impacts would be so significant to warrant a refusal.

• 6.6.2 It should also be noted, that the initial scheme did raise concerns of having an overbearing impact and/or potential overlooking which the Department raises with the applicants (as well as a number of other issues). Consequently they reduced the height of the building closest to Nr 15 from 7 storeys to 4 storeys.

• 6.6.3 The other property which would be impacted by the development would be the commercial/office building Murdoch House/Murdoch Chambers, which is located at the roundabout of South Quay/Fort Anne Road and also partially continues up Fort Anne Road opposite the Trafalgar and two of the eight industrial units. The closest aspect of the new build (southwest corner) would be 8.6m to the north of the neighbouring office block. Accordingly, views of North Quay would be lost from some of the office windows (those along Fort Anne Road), albeit the majority of the windows within Murdoch House/Murdoch Chambers wound not be significantly affected. Further, objections from the owners of Murdoch House/Murdoch Chambers raise concerns of "…the proposed development will entirely overshadow our clients building adversely affecting the light to and amenity of the same.". In this regarded it is not considered the proposal would have such an adverse impact. The site is to the north of the neighbouring office and due to the suns orientation (raising in the east and setting to the west), it is unlikely any significant amount of light (if any) would be lost or overshadowing. Supporting this conclusion, the applicants have provided a detail sun analysis diagrams undertaken during Winter and Summer Periods which also analysis how shadows created by the existing and proposed buildings are created during 9am and 5pm periods. This analysis demonstrates that no overshowing would occur.
• 6.6.4 The proposal will have more of an impact from the office windows than what current exists; however, given the neighbouring property is an office use, and not a residential property the potential impact is not considered so adverse to this type of use, to warrant a refusal. It should be noted that it a well-established planning consideration that a residential property has a higher level of protection than an office/commercial property. Further the two closets ground floor windows to the office building are obscure glazed (film stuck to windows).
• 6.6.5 There may be other properties which are affected by this development (i.e. Nrs 17 to 25 Douglas Head Road). However, it is considered the two properties most likely to be affected are those discussed previously in this report, and as the potential impacts on these properties are considered acceptable, it therefore is reasonable to consider the impacts to other properties in the area, are also acceptable. Accordingly, for the reasons given it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 from this respect.

6.8 Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & Active Travel);

• 6.8.1 Regarding parking provision the IOMSP starting point is that any new development should provide 1 space for 1 bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedroom apartment. In this case the application proposes 9 one bed apartments and 29 two or three bed apartments which equates to a requirement of 67 car parking spaces. The application proposes a total of 50 spaces and therefore a shortfall of 17 spaces. Therefore the application could be refused on this basis. However, in relation to the parking standards set out in the IOMSP, flexibility is provided as it states: "These standards may be relaxed where development:

• (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
• (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or
• (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area.
• (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality."

• 6.8.2 The site is close to Douglas Town Centre (Eastern Plan indicates the site is with the boundaries of the town centre) and has good pedestrian links from the site to the town centre and Lord Street Bus Station (main bus station on Island) and other Services and close to shops and employments.

• 6.8.3 It is also important to consider that the principles of the IOMSP seek for sustainable development and that Transport Policy 1 which seeks that new development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. The preamble to this policy is paragraph 11.2.3 which states that to meet environmental objectives new development should where possible be located and planned so as to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. It further goes on to state that such sites should be within or contiguous with existing built centres which are well served by public transport and which are within walking or cycling distance of the new development, and this will have the added benefit of strengthening the services, shops, employment opportunities and overall vitality of those centres.
• 6.8.4 It is also noted and of material planning consideration that The Active Travel Strategy has been approved which seeks to promote and provide adequate facilities (footpaths/cycle ways etc) to enable cycling and walking being normal and realistic transport choices for people of all ages and abilities. One of the main ways in which to achieve this vision will be to increase the number of people travelling actively i.e. not using cars. Arguably, providing car parking will not achieve this aim. This application will ensure (or at least can be conditioned to ensure) that each apartment will have at least one parking space each, with the remaining spaces can be used for visitors and/or provide additional spaces for some of the apartments.
• 6.8.5 The site is also immediately opposite the site to Lord Street car park (multi storey car parking approved under the Lord Street development), close to the Sea Terminal long stay car park and beyond the Bottle Neck car park, which especially for visitors is a realistic option available. Accordingly, there are public car parks in the vicinity. There are also existing parking restrictions (double yellow lines) on South Quay and Fort Anne Road that also prevent unacceptable on-street parking in the locality.
• 6.8.6 It also needs to be considered that the existing 8 industrial units have little off street parking available and rely solely on layby parking immediately fronting these units. There are approximately 16 spaces (each measure 4.8m in length); which some immediately front the accesses to each of these industrial units, so this number could reduce to ensure access is retained for each unit. It is also not uncommon, especially from the units used as garages/tyre sales, for vehicles having to reverse onto the highway (no turning provision within each unit), after being within the garages. This is a significant highway safety impact. If the eight industrial units where to be built today there would be a requirement for a total of 49 spaces (light industrial use) or 29 spaces for general industrial (i.e. garages etc). I could be argued the existing units have a mixed of light and general industrial uses, therefore it is difficult to precisely indicate what level of perking is required, but between the two amounts is likely to be a reasonable understanding of the parking required. Taking the worst case scenario of 49 spaces, then there would be a shortfall of 33 spaces. Arguably, it is reasonable to consider that the existing uses would likely have far more of an impact upon highway safety and on onstreet parking then the proposal apartments would.
• 6.8.7 In terms of cycle provision Highway Services have comments that there is insufficient, with the application only providing 17 out of the required 38 spaces. The applicants have indicated that: "Our current scheme highlights 3 zones of vertical bike storage supplying 52 spaces based on typical staggered vertical bike rack system. This allowed for smaller racks to be used however, should this design change to standard horizontal bike racks or larger vertical racks there is adequate free space to fulfil the requirement of numbers requested by highways."
• 6.8.8 It is considered a condition should be attached with any approval which demonstrates that at least 38 cycle spaces are provided, which would address the issue. It is considered there is space available in the underground car park to provide the spaces, it just needs to be shown on a plan and provided prior to the occupation of any apartment.

• 6.8.9 Overall, while the proposal would not provide on-site parking it is considered the residential use on this specific site, located in the centre of town, close to public transport links and good sustainable links, would all help meet the overarching aims of the IOMSP which seeks to promote sustainable development and travel which seeks to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use.
• 6.8.10 Accordingly, given these comments and no objection being received from Highway Services, it is considered the proposal from a parking perspective is acceptable and the traffic generated by the development is also acceptable and therefore all complies with the relevant policies of the IOMSP.

6.9 Flood risk (GP2(l) & EP10 &13);

• 6.9.1 The majority of the site is within an area of 'High Flood Risk Zone - Tidal'. Accordingly, the applicants have prepared a Flood Risk Statement, following discussions with Manx Utilities. The applicants flood statement indicates that:

"The Coastal Flood Boundary (CFB) dataset was interrogated and the 200 year flood level for the base year of 2008 is 3.9m AOD. To find the current 2019 level and to consider the effect of future climate change (to 2100), UKCP18 (UK climate change predictions) data was reviewed, taking the High Emissions scenario and 95%ile values. These provide conservative (high estimates of future climate change). Based on this information;

• o The 2019 200 year extreme sea level is 3.95m AOD; and
• o The 2100 200 year extreme sea level is 4.88m AOD.

Levels within the are shown in Figure 2. The site is above the present day 200 year extreme sea level. However, the site is located below the 200 year extreme sea level for 2100.

Isle of Man guidance notes that the development should be outside of the 200 year coastal floodplain with an allowance for climate change. Therefore, as the site is potentially at risk from the 200 year extreme sea level with climate change the development will need to take into account the risks from elevated sea levels due to climate change.

Finished Floor Levels in the building should be set above the 1 in 200 year + climate change flood level (with an appropriate freeboard). Safe site access should also be provided for the climate change event. As increases in sea level due to climate change are incremental it may be possible to take an adaptive approach to the development, with mitigation measures brought in by the developer or the council during the lifetime of the development. We understand that floor levels will be set around 1.2m above current levels, and this would provide a significant freeboard over the predicted extreme sea levels in 2100."

• 6.9.2 The report concludes: "This report provides a Stage 1 flood risk assessment for a proposed development in Douglas. The site is located close to Douglas Harbour and coastal flooding is considered the main flood risk to the site. The site sits above the predicted 200 year extreme sea level, but below the 200 year + climate change flood level for 2100. Based on Isle of Man guidance the site would need to be developed taking into account the effects of future climate change. We understand that proposed floor levels will be set 1.2m above current levels, which will provide significant freeboard above the 1 in 200 year + climate change flood levels."
• 6.9.3 As mention the building has been designed for the floor levels to take account of the flood levels i.e. the ground floor apartments are above this level (6.07 AD02) being set at 6.27 AD02. The footprint of development is not so different to the existing industrial buildings footprint and therefore it could be argued that the proposal could not have an unacceptable level of flooding elsewhere.

• 6.9.4 These comments are acknowledged. The policy tests for flooding are set out in the IOMSP EP13 in terms of whether the, "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site…".
• 6.9.5 The proposal will clearly increase the level of development, and potentially people and property, within an area at risk of flooding. The applicant has provided information to demonstrate that this risk is understood and has been mitigated as far as possible (although noting that a level of residual risk will always remain). Concerns have not been raised by MU in relation to displacing flood risk (i.e. making it worse for the surrounding area) and so the issue is whether the level of risk (i.e. a product of likelihood and potential severity of impact) to the future users of the site is such that the development should be refused.
• 6.9.6 In terms of the Finished Floor levels of the ground floor apartments, this issue would seem to have been addressed given the finished floor levels of the ground floor apartments are above the flood level.
• 6.9.7 The outstanding issue relates to the principle of underground parking/basement. As outlined in paragraph 5.5.7 no comments have been received in relation to the potential flood barriers which the applicants have indicated could be undertaken to prevent flooding of the underground car park.
• 6.9.8 It is noted that the initially comments from Manx Utilities (when the application had two levels of underground parking) was that; "Manx Utilities have a preference against basement car parking within tidal zone we will need the FRA to provide more information on how flood risk to the basement and general development with be mitigated against.". More recent correspondents from Manx Utilities are that such underground car parking is "not appropriate". This issue needs to be considered in the context of the potential for the current and emerging aspirations for the wider re-development of the South Quay area (including as set out in the Draft Eastern Area Plan ). It is noted that a number of past applications along the south quay (eastern section from site to swing bridge) have similar underground parking arrangements.
• 6.9.9 The type of flooding is tidal, and therefore there is greater potential for warnings than with fluvial flooding. This is important as the main concern is that people would get trapped in the underground car park, which is a very valid concern. However, it is considered there are mitigating factors. Firstly, it should also be noted that the underground car park is not fully below street level. As mentioned earlier in this report the car park is ½ storey underground (approximately 1.6m below). Further the applicants have provided details of varies flood defences which could be installed to the entrance/exit of the car park, which could be flood barriers which are manly installed when a flood event is due to occur. Other measures include automatic barriers which raise when a flood event is taking space. The applicants have also provided flood pumps within the basement to pump any water which where to access the car park.
• 6.9.10 If the flooding was fluvial (i.e. from river) this concern of MU would be greater, given these events generally happen very quickly and people have little time to react (i.e. Laxey Floods in recent times). However, tidal flooding is more predictable and measures can be undertaken to protect people and properties, especially when built in features have already been installed and not relying on temporary flood defences (i.e. sandbags).
• 6.9.11 In terms of the prediction of tidal flooding it is noted on the Government Web Site has a dedicated "Flood Watch" page which states: "Forecasters at Ronaldsway use weather forecast information together with tidal predictions and storm surge forecasts to monitor the risk of flooding 24 hours per day, 365/6 days per year. The flood warning status for the Island is updated when necessary and communicated to

• the Department's Duty Officers, the Island's Emergency Services and to the community by various means."
• 6.9.12 It should be highlighted the ground floor apartments are above the 1 in 200 year flood event, so persons and their dwellings would be protected.
• 6.9.13 Overall, it is considered appropriate flood defences can be installed/built into the building, which would enable the occupiers from preventing flood water entering the building, whilst also ensuring the safety of people in the building as well. Accordingly, with condition/s attached to any approval, which provided full specifications of the flood defences to be used prior to the commencement of any development, this could provide acceptable level of flood protection to this property.
• 6.9.14 It should also be noted that MU have enquired whether ground floor car parking could be undertaken. However the Department would likely refuse any scheme where the ground floors were car parking given the adverse visual impact and also go against the aims of trying to provide active frontages of interest. Consideration could be also given that no parking should be required for this or any of the developments along the south Quay in the flood zone. However, the applicants have advised (and likely other applicants to other sites along South Quay) that this would not make any development viable given the requirement from prospective purchasers/occupiers requiring some level of parking. On balance it is considered that the residual flood risk is not unacceptable given that:

• o there is broad policy support for redeveloping the site;
• o the site is previously developed land;
• o it is otherwise a very sustainable location within Douglas;
• o the wider benefits of the scheme (including visual impacts and affordable housing and
• open space provision); and o it is accepted that the provision of car parking helps to make the units marketable.

• 6.9.15 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with GP2(l) & EP10 &13 of the IOMSP.
• 6.9.16 It is also noted that the Department of Environment Food and Agricultural has also prepared a "National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion: Evidence Report, Final Report - 06 June 2016"; which it identifies the Douglas Harbour as;

"Moderate level of risk to a low number of properties suggests that the risk is not high compared with other areas. This area has been identified as very sensitive to increased flood damage as a result of increased flood extent and frequency due to climate change."

And recommends that:

"A scheme for this area is already proposed for the future. A further study of both tidal and surface water risk at the promenade is required to better understand levels of risk and flood mechanisms in this area."

• 6.9.17 The "scheme for this area is already proposed for the future" is understood to be additional work which the Department of Infrastructure has undertaken with the engaged of a specialist engineering consultancy to develop concept options for flood and storm protection. The work focused on the Department's assets at known problem areas, mainly around the Island's ports. The current concept plan (as indicated on the Government Website) indicates that works to North Quay are proposed with potential raising of the wall slightly, but also a Tidal Gate in the location of the current swing bridge. Again while none of these works have approval, it is useful to have a understanding that works are potentially going to be undertaken in the future, to reduce tidal flooding of the quayside as a while, and therefore presumably to

the site. However, these cannot be relied upon and so are not considered necessary to make the scheme acceptable.

6.10 Open Space provision (GP4, RP3 & RP4)

• 6.10.1 As the development proposes more than 10 residential units (i.e. 20 apartments) an Open Space provision is required. In this case it is accepted that a commuted sum payment via a Section 13 Legal Agreement should be provided. This is accepted given the site is closes to a number of open spaces provision i.e. The Promenade and Quayside and it is not considered reasonable to consider such provision being made on site, albeit a landscaped are is being provided on site to the rear; it is not considered this could reasonably be accessed by members of the public. The applicants have accepted a commuted sum payment of £33,516, which has also been agreed by Douglas Borough Council in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 6 of the IOMSP.
• 6.10.2 It should be noted, albeit not open to the public, the apartments will all have access to a rear private garden (1231sqm) to the rear of the building, which is an unusual feature for apartment buildings, but one which is of benefit to the residential amenities of the occupants. A condition seeking a landscaping plan should be included to any approval.

6.11 Fire risk (CP10 & 11)

• 6.11.1 No objections have been received from the Fire Brigade. Furthermore, this application would require a Building Regulations Application to be made and issues relating to fire would be considered at this stage by the relevant Authorities. Due to this and no objections have been received from this respect it is considered the proposal complies with CP10 & 11.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

• 7.1.1 Overall, it is considered the development proposed would result represent a significant development on a prominent site within Douglas, which currently has a negative visual impact upon views from the adjacent Conservation Area and the whole quayside as a whole; but also a negative appearance when travelling along one of the main routes into Douglas. The use proposed would be comply with the Local Plan, IOMSP, Draft Area Plan for the East and Douglas Master Plan and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable.

• 7.1.2 It is acknowledge that the design may not be to everyone's tastes, albeit not many objections have been received on this basis. Notwithstanding this, it is considered the proposal would represent a contemporary designed development in proportion, form and finishes which would be beneficial to the existing variation of deign styles in the area currently and be the continued evolution of the street scene. The mass, size and scale of the building is substantial, and there should be no doubt that the building would become a prominent feature from a number of locations identified in this report. However, it is considered this site is a size which can accommodate the size, scale and mass of development and site well within the various street scenes.

• 7.1.3 The site is not within a Conservation Area, albeit adjoins/close to a Conservation Area. However, while it is acknowledged that give the new buildings size, mass and scale it is substantial, it is not considered the Conservation Area would be adversely affected by the development and there character and quality would remain. It is noted that the South Quay and North Quay is made up of a variety of building designs (Arts & Craft, Victorian, Gothic Revival, Georgian & 18th- 20th century Industrial), finishes and scales and this would just continue this evolution of development in the area. It is also considered the redevelopment of the site would actually represent a vast improvement to views into and out of the Conservation Area, which currently are of large unattractive industrial units which have a negative visual impact upon the Conservation Area.

• 7.1.4 All other matters covered within this report are considered acceptable and comply with the relevant policies.

• 7.1.5 Accordingly, given the reasons stated it is considered the application would be acceptable, complying with Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016), The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998, The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014); The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018); The Active Travel Strategy (2018); and the Residential Design Guide (2019) and therefore the application is recommended for an approval subject to Section 13 Legal Agreements.
• 8.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS

8.1 As noted within this report there are two matters which require a Section 13 Legal Assessment. The first relates to Public Open Space in lieu of the shortfall of onsite provision, which a sum of £33,516 has been agreed with Douglas Borough Council and the applicant. The second aspect relates to the commuted sum payment in lieu of affordable housing. This equates to a payment of approximately £402,725. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 9.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : ………….... Committee Meeting Date:…28.10.2019

Signed :………C BALMER…….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 28.10.2019

Application No. : 18/01342/B Applicant : South Quay Commercial Limited Proposal : Demolition of industrial units situated at 31-39 and erection of

38 flats

Site Address : 31-39 South Quay South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report PLANNING COMMITTEE 28/10/2019 Demolition of industrial units situated at 31-39 and erection of 38 flats - 18/01342/B - 31-39 South Quay, South Quay, Douglas

The Planning Committee considered the application and acceptable the recommendation of the Officer and approved the application with slight amendment to the following conditions form thos recommended:

C 3 No apartment shall be occupied at any time unless it has been allocated at least one of the parking spaces within the lower ground floor car park as shown on drawing 18.0160.05B and the relevant parking space (or spaces) is available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s).

Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking for each apartment.

• C 6 Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed plan showing the position and design of 38 Cycle Parking Spaces within the site is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department, and this approved scheme is required to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any unit and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that sufficient Cycle Parking provision is provided.
• C 7 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the bin stores shall each be completed as shown on plan 18.160.05B and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate bin provision within the site.

• C 8 No development shall commence on site until detailing of demountable flood defences or similar have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate flood protection of the site.

Interested Person Status was also granted to the following parties: Seawall Limited owner of Murdoch Chambers and Murdoch House (Long & Humphrey - The Old Court House, Athol Street, Douglas) -

And Highbury, 15 Head Road, Douglas