Loading document...
Application No.: | 10 / 00964 / CON | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant: | Heron \& Brearley | | Proposal: | Registered Building Consent for alterations, part demolition and extension to | | | Douglas Hotel and demolition of remainder buildings (RB no 186 in association | | | with 10/00963GB) | | Site Address: | Douglas Hotel, Former Farmers Retail Unit \& | | | The Clarendon Hotel | | | North Quay | | | Douglas | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM1 4LA | ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations 9 Fort William Douglas Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes : Comments received Consultee : Manx National Heritage Notes : comments Consultee : Douglas Corporation Notes : No comment
This application is recommended for consideration by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers due to the scale of the development.
This is a joint report which assesses the merits a planning application and a Registered Building Consent application.
The application site comprises of the Douglas Hotel, the I.O.M Farmers building and the Clarendon Hotel located on the North Quay, Douglas, within the North Quay Conservation Area. To the east and rear of the application site is a public car park. To the west of the site is a single storey building used
by the Royal British Legion. The application site is located within an area zoned as predominantly shopping.
The Douglas Hotel is a substantial, four storey, 5 bay former public house, which was originally built in 1758 and is a Registered Building (RB 186). The I.O.M Farmers building and Clarendon Hotel are three storey, 3 bay properties. These properties are not registered buildings.
The application is seeking planning permission and Registered Building Consent to alter and partly demolish the rear section of the Douglas Hotel and the demolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site to create offices and a public house with a microbrewery.
The proposal also involves substantial internal works to the Douglas Hotel to create a Public House at ground floor level with office space above.
Following the demolition of the Farmers and Clarendon Hotel, a new three and half storey extension to the Douglas Hotel would be constructed to provide a public house with microbrewery on the basement and ground floor of the extension. The floors above would provide separate office space. The extension would project 15.5 m to the side of the Douglas Hotel and would be 21 m to 18.2 m in length. The extension will wrap around the Douglas Hotel by 10.5 m and will be between 6 m and 10.2 m in depth. The height of the extension, when viewed from the North Quay, would be 15.1 m and 15.6 m to the ridge. The height of the extension, when viewed from the rear, would be 14.5 m and 15.6 m to the ridge.
The materials to be used for the extension would be as follows: Roof - Natural slate Walls - smooth painted render Windows - painted hardwood windows Shopfront - sliding folding partition in hardwood The material to be used on the Douglas Hotel Roof - New Natural slate roof Walls - repair and repaint original render Windows - repair and restore existing timber windows. Where windows found to be beyond repair, removal to be agreed with the Conservation Officer and identical replica replacement units to be installed. Entrance door- repair and restore existing timber door.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Business Policies 7 and 8, Environment Policies 32, 33, 35, 39 and 41
Business Policy 7 states that "New office space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan; exceptionally, permission may be given for new office space
Business Policy 8 states that "New office buildings should, in terms of height and mass, respect the scale and character of adjoining and nearby buildings and should accommodate parking space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 7 of the Plan."
Environment Policy 32 states that "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted."
Environment Policy 33 states that "The change of use of Registered Buildings will only be permitted if the proposed use is appropriate and any alterations associated with the change are not detrimental to its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest."
Environment Policy 35 states that "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and will ensure that he special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Environment Policy 41 states that "The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. In cases where remains are affected but preservation in-situ is not merited, the Department will expect to secure excavations and/or recording in advance of construction work either by the imposition of suitable conditions attached to a planning permission or through a formal agreement entered into with the developer."
Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."
Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."
Within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Policy RB/5, CA/2 and CA/6
Policy RB/5 states that "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses." "Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals." "Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative affect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."
Policy CA/2 states that "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application." "Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application: 99/00824/B - Creation of new fire escape, The Douglas Hotel, North Quay, Douglas - granted 00/01330/B - Conversion of public house to offices - refused at appeal 00/2389/B - Alterations and refurbishment of public house with extension into adjoining retail unit and creation of two additional living units on upper level - granted
03/01111/B - Alterations to, and amalgamation of three properties to form a public house and residential hotel - granted
04/01754/CON - Registered building consent for alterations to, and amalgamation of three properties to form a public house and residential hotel - (in association with PA 03/01111/B) - Split Decision
08/00132/GB - Alterations and retention of Douglas Hotel and the demolition and redevelopment of The Farmers and Clarendon Hotel to include creation of five self contained apartments - refused on 15th August 2008
The reasons for refusal were as follows:
08/00133/CON - Registered Building Consent for alterations to Douglas Hotel - Refused 15th August 2008. The reasons for refusal were as follows:
not sympathetic to the registered building, and do not protect or enhance the character of the registered building. Furthermore, the application does not provide sufficient evidence to justify the level of works required in order to renovate the building.
Douglas Corporation has not objected to the application. Department of Infrastructure Highways Division recommends deferral of a decision as they require more information regarding the following.
This parking standards within the Strategic Plan make provision for this type of development however the design statement included with the application has failed to demonstrate that "a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" as required by Appendix 7.
It is also worth noting that although the outside seating area shown on drawing SC1183/P/10-01 is not included within this application, the layout as shown does not comply with the Douglas Development Partnership Guidelines on the use of the Public Highway for Pavement Cafes. This document should be consulted for advice on designing any future schemes.
Manx National Heritage has made the following comments: "It is our view that the total loss of the buildings on the Farmers and Clarendon sites is deeply regrettable, whilst the proposed alterations to the Douglas Hotel, involving the significant loss of historic fabric of a Registered Building for which there is no detailed structural, historical or architectural assessment or record, are unjustified and unacceptable. We are of the view that the proposals as they effect the Douglas Hotel alone are sufficient to warrant refusal." "We have studied the submitted documents and wish to draw attention to the following matter. These are of concern to us in that they demonstrate that an insufficient case has been made to warrant the proposed scheme:
this historical data lies in maps of Douglas viewed, we understand, in MNH archives. None of the maps have been reproduced to allow examination, or indeed confirmation that all relevant maps have been studied. On this basis the statement quoted above is almost worthless.
The comment in the engineer's report (at paragraph 2.2) that there is movement in the two storey extension (it is assumed that this refers to the Douglas Hotel but is nowhere made clear) 'suggesting long term settlement of the supporting strata', together with similar comments at paragraph 2.3 would actually contradict the previous assumption of 'reasonable ground'.
Overall, the engineer's report is visual rather that investigative, and appears to make no consideration of the potential character of the deposits beneath the existing structures on the whole site." "With regard to the latter issue, we would draw particular attention to the complete lack of consideration given by the applicant or their agents to the possibility of there being archaeological deposits beneath the existing structures. These would result from previous activity on the site associated with the early Douglas and its harbour. Such deposits are potentially of considerable historical and national significance and, because they may comprise a mixture of built structures of stone and timber, made ground and waterlogged organic material, could contribute to the differing degrees of settlement which concern the applicant. Under the circumstance we would suggest that the lack of an engineering investigation of ground conditions is both naïve and a serious omission in the integrity of this application, which renders wholly speculative the proposed foundation designs. We would urge that there be both archaeological and engineering investigation before any scheme for the redevelopment of the site comes forward, particularly any engineering solutions that are developed in the construction process rather than at the design stage, run the risk of causing significant collateral damage to archaeological deposits, without there being a means to safeguard them." "Lastly, we draw attention to the scale of the proposed new-build element of the scheme. At present, the Douglas Hotel visually dominates the site, particularly from the south, as both the tallest and the highest quality building on the site. It is our firm view that the building proposed for the Farmers and Clarendon site will in turn dominate the Douglas Hotel by virtue of its mass - which presents long uniform facades to the south and east -, its dormer windows, its higher than at present ridge line, and most significantly because it appears to wrap around the Douglas Hotel both at the front and the rear. We believe that in no way can the newly developed part of the scheme be said to respect the existing Registered Building on the site, not does it improve the setting of this protected building.
Additional comments from the Trustess of Manx National Heritage have been received: "They have asked that their concerns be re-emphasised, particularly with regard to the historical importance of the Douglas Hotel, which was associated with the Lord of Mann and has strong connections with the Manx individuals involved with the Mutiny on the Bounty in 1789."
They further noted that the building, by virtue of its age and prominent location, has played a significant role in the cultural heritage and development of Douglas and particularly its harbour, and that this prominence is placed at risk by the proposed development. This echoes our view expressed earlier that the Douglas Hotel is in danger of being visually overwhelmed by the mass and position of the proposed new structure on the site of the Farmers' and the Clarendon Hotel."
Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society have made the following comments: "This is an application of registered building consent but there is no proper assessment of the importance of the building, no detail as to what it is proposed to do, and no justification. If any alteration is to be made to a registered building (let alone demolition or gutting of part of it) there must be a proper justification submitted."
"It is our understanding that Table 1 is included in the application form for precisely this reason, but in this particular case we see that the third column: "How will this feature or element be affected by the proposals?" has been left entirely blank throughout. It is therefore difficult for other parties and particularly the Planning Committee, to make informed decisions on this application. It would be reasonable to expect the applicant to submit a complete list of all the important features of the buildings, whether they are proposed to be retained and, if they are not to be retained, why. We are concerned whether the list of works for which consent is required is in fact complete. We trust the applicant realises, before any work can be done to a registered building, that consent is required. Vague references to refurbishment are insufficient. Every feature to be altered or removed must be itemised." "Whilst it is stated that the buildings have been marketed, we note this was by Messrs. Black Grace Cowley who we understand are general estate agents on the Isle of Man. No evidence is brought forward of the price at which the properties were put on the market, and how and where they were marketed. We also not that there is no evidence that the properties were marketed through an appropriate specialist firm of historic building estate agents or whether, in view of their alleged condition, notice was put in the SPAB's (The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings) national list of buildings for sale requiring work (in which Manx buildings have regularly appeared)." "We must stress that this is one of the most important historic sites in the Island. It is not just one of the few remaining parts of old Douglas, it is the very centre of the Island's capital, next to the market place. On a site of that importance there must be a proper historical appraisal, in addition to the statement by a firm of engineers and a statement by the applicants' themselves, who are a firm of architects. This application would have major effect on the historic heart of Douglas and as such should require input from a properly qualified or properly experienced person as to the value or history of the buildings." "We are surprised that the applicant has not alerted the Planning Committee to the importance of the site. It forms the whole of Block 6 in the Survey of Douglas. This shows that in 1705 the site was owned by the Lord of Mann (James, 10th Earl of Derby) and its use was as the Lord's New Cellars, Stable and Courthouse Loft. It was referred to as the "Lord's House" in 1744 and is referred to in an engraving by Meredith c1810 as the "Duke of Atholl's house" (it is a house of that importance). The site was part of the Demesne lands of his Lordship." "Cellars in an historic context are not necessarily buildings below ground, the term being used to include warehouse, storage and possibly entertainment rooms above ground but separate from the dwellinghouse. The barrel-vaulted structures mentioned in the application may be part of the Lord's Cellars. There is no indication that there has been any proper examination of the Bond Street frontage, which may well include early fabric. It is misleading to refer to the "front" and "back" of the site. To the south, the site fronts the North Quay, but to the north it equally has a front on Bond Street and the buildings at the north of the site must be read in that light. Among the features which are easily visible from outside, but ignored in the application, are the fine roofs of this frontage with graded slates." "The application mentions a staircase in the Douglas Hotel, which it appears to propose to move but makes no mention of the original staircases in the Isle of Man Farmers and the Clarendon Hotel, part of the former and all the latter being believed still to survive. The statement is made that the Clarendon was built 1863 to 1870 but there is no reference to indicate where this came from: it has been suggested to us they are in fact Regency c1810. A proper assessment needs to be done, which must also investigate whether there is earlier fabric in either the main block or the Bond Street block of the Clarendon and the Isle of Man Farmers' buildings." "We most strongly urge that this application does not proceed any further without having a proper assessment of the buildings carried out by a suitably qualified person."
The occupier of No. 9 Fort William has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the proposals are inconsistent with registered building status and a designated conservation area; 2) the proposal will adversely impact the visual amenity and be destructive to the conservation and historical importance of Douglas, as a whole, the harbour area in particular and especially the North Quay Conservation Area; 3) the proposed demolition of over half the complex (Farmers Retail Unit and Clarendon Hotel) as well as the rear of the Douglas Hotel will do irreparable damage. The Douglas Hotel is a landmark building dating from 1758. It is one of the oldest remaingin buildings in Douglas and has previously served as the residence of the Dukes of Athol and the Customs House. A willingness to allow its owners to partially demolish it due to severe neglect is inconsistent with a real effort at historic conservation of the built environment; 4) Viewed from the north side all these buildings have great visual attraction with varying facades, rooflines and finishes. Their planned replacement fails to respect this and will greatly detract from the visual amenity of the area. Of course it would be cheaper to demolish and build a new at the same time increasing the footprint and volume of the construction than to refurbish what is there. However, that defeats the object of historic conservation, which it is the role and responsibility of the public planners and the buildings' owners to safeguard.
Standard Comments have been received from the Drainage Department of Douglas Corporation and the Manx Electricity Authority.
The assessment of this application can be split into two distinctive elements. These are;
Firstly, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "Any building which is located within a conservation area...may not be demolished without the consent of the Department.... When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area...It will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
Therefore, the application should be assessed against similar criteria to that as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. It is useful to understand what criteria are used in Policy RB/6. The policy sets out the following considerations:
In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;"
The applicant's agents have provided a Structural Engineer's report which summarises the structural condition of the Douglas Hotel, Farmers and the Clarendon Hotel.
The report states that the structural condition of the buildings are as follows: Roof - The existing roofs are of traditional purlin and rafter construction with a single truss at mid span, however the attic floor is uneven. There is evidence of water ingress which has resulted in damp rot to the ends of the majority of the structural timber members.
Upper floors - The existing floor are tongue and groove with timber joists at 300c/c to 400c/c, there is evidence of unevenness and distortion of the existing floors, which is likely to be related to the numerous alterations carried out over many years.
The steelwork to the openings to the Farmers is visible and can be seen to be in a poor condition, starting to delaminate in several areas. It is reasonable to assume that the unexposed steelwork within the Clarendon is of a similar condition.
The floors of the two storey extension to the rear fall away to the rear suggesting long term settlement of the supporting strata. The extension would appear to be a later "add on" to the building.
External walls - The existing external walls are traditional Manx stone construction. The East and West elevations demonstrate significant structural cracking between the two storey extension and the main properties, this likely to be attributable to differential settlement caused by differing levels of foundations and bearing strata. The cracking would appear to be longstanding, however if the buildings are left in a state of disrepair this may become ongoing and progressive.
Internal walls - The internal walls are a combination of masonry and timber stud, and within the Farmers and the Clarendon there is evidence of longstanding structural movement which can be attributed to the historical structural alterations. This may become ongoing and progressive if the building is left in a state of disrepair.
Basement - The basement structure of the Clarendon reflects the now removed ground floor structural walls, similarly within the Farmers. The basement within the Douglas reflects the ground floor structural walls. There are two barrel arch vaults to the rear of the Douglas with relatively shallow cover to the head of the arch, appearing to coincide with the external ground levels. Similarly with the Douglas, the Farmers also house two small barrel arch vaults to the rear, currently in-filled with rubble.
The basements are generally in a damp condition, however, no standing water was observed in any of the basements. There is a large sump/pump arrangement within the front mid section of the Clarendon, likewise within the Douglas, there is a smaller scale sump arrangement. There would not appear to be any signs of significant structural movement to the external basement walls.
Historical information - Maps made available by Manx Heritage would appear to indicate that the North Quay was formed by excavation; the scheme was enlarged during the 1900's to give the current South Quay configuration. The would indicate that the Douglas, Farmers and Clarendon were built on undisturbed ground, therefore it may be assumed that ground bearing foundations may be adopted.
The Structural Engineer's report also includes a structural appraisal/feasibility statement for the proposed regeneration/restoration, which is as follows:
Douglas Hotel Basement - It is proposed that a new lift pit is installed within the basement; we are of the opinion that this could be installed withn the existing basement and with minimum disruption to the existing structure.
To retain the barrel vault basements to the rear of the Douglas, a grillage of reinforced ground beams would be cast in order to ensure suitable load transfer away from the arches.
Clarendon/Farmers basements - Historical investigations have indicated that reasonable ground will be encountered upon excavation. The exploratory work required in order to assess the structural capabilities of the existing walls is likely to prove inconclusive, therefore a new frame would need to be inserted from the basement walls.
Tradition pad foundations would require extensive and deep excavations, particularly in relation to the central column, requiring excavation within the region of 3.0 m deep. Excavation of this extent would require significant temporary works. Based on the water levels observed in the sumps a dewatering exercise would need to be carried out.
The proposal is to use the existing external basement walls as temporary formwork and cast in internal box type foundation, which will keep excavations to a minimum and assist with controlling damp.
Douglas Hotel Superstructure - The installation of the lift shaft and stair amendments can be achieved with minimum disruption to the superstructure of the Douglas Hotel.
Clarendon/Douglas - Overlaying the proposed scheme on the existing structure, as can be seen on the attached BB Consulting drawings clearly demonstrate that in order to provide the open space required within the proposed scheme that the existing structure is not suitable of re-use, due to the extent of the walls that would need to be removed.
In respect of the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use, the applicant have investigated the potential for a façade retention scheme however, the significant cost (in excess of £ 200,000 ) and the lack of the architectural quality for the building, the applicants considers this solution to be completely unviable. Therefore, the resultant proposal is to retain the major portion of the Douglas Hotel and restore it to an attract building whilst clearing the remainder of the site for the construction of a replacement building.
In respect of the adequacy of effort made to retain the Douglas Hotel, the applicants agent has stated "The cost of maintenance and repair on a building this size is considerable however, the applicant is consistently employing contractors to patch roof work and prevent bird access. This will not stop further deterioration however[sic]"
In respect of the adequacy of effort made to retain the retail unit, the applicant's agent has stated the retail offer on the North Quay is poor due to limited footfall. The alternative use for offices or residential accommodation for this unit would require considerable investment and unlikely to generate satisfactory returns. As with the Douglas therefore the Applicant now simply deals with essential maintenance. This will not prevent further deterioration."
In respect of the adequacy of effort made to retain the retail unit, the applicant's agent has stated that "The Clarendon is still in use although profits are diminishing. The building did contain Landlords accommodation on the upper floors until recently however, the annual cost of maintaining a fit living environment due to the very poor state of the building fabric was such that the applicant moved the Landlord out and now carries out essential maintenance only. This will not prevent further deterioration."
In respect of the merits of alternative proposals for the site, the applicant's agent has stated the merits are clear;
In conclusion, the Conservation Officer considers the proposals are finely balanced and his detailed comments on the proposed demolition are expressed below: "Of consideration, is that the buildings have all been in dilapidated state for a long time and the current economic climate is such that similar building works are not being taken up. There is little doubt that the demolition of two buildings in such a prominent location within the North Quay Conservation Area, immediately adjacent to a similarly prominent and important historic building in The Douglas, could be viewed as detrimental. The accompanying information to the application seeks to justify the proposals and indeed, goes some way to do just that." "In an ideal world, more of the fabric of the two neighbouring properties would have been retained and the proposed micro brewery integrated within the historic basement beneath, an amalgam of the old and the new public houses. Modern desires to maximise office floorplates, seek to remove changes in level etc have driven the design rather than a scheme that uses the historic fabric of the three buildings as a generator for a new scheme. On balance, the design of replacement building for The Farmer's and The Clarendon, effectively mirrors that to be demolished which is considered to be neutral in terms of whether this preserves or enhances the conservation area. Undoubtedly, the man in the street will see a Registered Building that has been 'restored' and a pair of new, pristine buildings adjoining it that look very similar to those demolished."
The second part of the assessment is whether the proposed extension to replace the existing buildings is acceptable.
The design of the building is not trying to mimic or replicate the architecture of the existing buildings, which are to be demolished. The new buildings will be an extra half storey higher on the North Quay and an extra two storeys higher on the rear elevations compared to the existing buildings. The proposed fenestration for the upper floors of the building, on the North Quay elevation, is copying some elements of the fenestration detailing from the existing building but not all elements. The proposal will include additional dormers to the front and rear elevations. The ground floor of the front elevation will have folding doors allowing access on to the Quayside Due to the use of different elevational detailing on each half of the building, the overall appearance of the front and rear extension gives the impression that two separate buildings will be constructed on the site. This breaks up the overall massing of the building and does not become a dominant feature within the
streetscene and nor does it adversely affect the setting of the Registered Building. Furthermore, the application is proposing to make the building double fronted, which is a current design feature of the existing buildings.
In respect of the external alterations to the Douglas Hotel these will have a neutral affect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the character of the Registered Building.
The other principal issues in assessing this application are a) Land use and b) Parking provision. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
The Local Plan zoning of the site is predominantly shopping. The proposal will result in the loss of a retail unit; however, there are no retail policies to prevent the loss of retail units within such areas. The proposed extension would create a larger public house occupying the site of former retail unit and public house. The use would help to create a vibrant quayside and is generally an accepted use within retail areas.
The upper floors of the Douglas Hotel and the extension will be used as offices. It should be noted that paragraph 9.4 .5 of the Strategic Plan states that "It is accepted that in some circumstances a mix of use can be appropriate within town centre locations such as residential flats above retail units or office accommodation, particularly where this can help to ensure the use of the area at different times during the day, thus helping to ensure the security and vitality of these areas." Therefore, the use of the upper floors of the building as office space would be acceptable.
The car parking standards set out in Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires 1 space for every 50 square metres of net floor space. The application is proposing to provide approximately 1208.48 square metres of net floor space which would equate to a requirement for 24 car parking spaces. The application is not proposing any parking for the new office accommodation at the request of officers for aesthetic reasons.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan states the "the car parking standards may be relaxed where the development:
Paragraph 11.5.3 of the Strategic Plans states that "The long term target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans including improved public transport, staff buses, shared and pooled cars, cycling and walking".
The non-provision of parking spaces does not accord with the policies in the Strategic Plan. However, the site is located within a town centre location where the provision for car parking within developments will be limited. The application site is adjacent to the Lord Street terminus. It is would be reasonable to include a requirement for a travel plan which would help to promote sustainable transport objectives. Furthermore, it would assist in meeting the long term target of reducing the level of car parking in town centre developments.
The applicant's agent has indicated that the office use will generate greater numbers of people however the lack of parking is compensated in the following way.
The applicants have indicated that they will provide the minimum 6 off-site car parking space as required by the Highways Division. This would not accord with the number of spaces required under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Furthermore, it would not possible to secure these spaces through a planning condition or legal agreement.
Paragraph 11.5.3 of the Strategic Plan states that "The long term target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans including improved public transport, staff buses, shared and pooled cars, cycling and walking".
The adoption and implementation of a travel plan can be required through a planning condition and it is enforceable insofar as the Planning Authority can require sight of it and require it to be updated on a yearly basis. To a certain extent the details within the scheme would rely on staff and management's commitment, although other aspects can be evidenced. It is recommended that in this instance a condition could be attached as part of any planning permission for the scheme if members were minded to approve. Notwithstanding this, research on the effectiveness of Travel Plans in the UK has shown, unsurprisingly, that by far the most effective way of reducing car usage is to reduce the amount of available parking.
In summary, the non-provision of parking spaces within the development would not accord with the policies in the Strategic Plan. However, the site is located within a town centre location. It is considered that the introduction of a travel plan, which would help to promote sustainable transport objectives, is acceptable. Furthermore, it would assist in meeting the long term target of reducing the level of car parking in town centre developments.
In respect of the concerns about the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles, the Highway Authority suggested that the loading bay and access is rearranged to allow a delivery vehicle to reverse into position and drive away without using the access lane. The applicants have taken onboard this suggestion and the plans have been amended accordingly.
The Highway Authority also noted that the loading area doors should be replaced with a shutter or inward opening doors so as to prevent any doors open onto the public highway. The applicant has taken on board this suggestion and the plans have been amended to show a shutter door.
The Highway Authority also noted that the Fire escape door should be recessed into the building to ensure that it does not open over the public highway. The applicant has taken onboard this suggestion and the plans have been amended by reposition the doorway and making the doors to open inwards.
It is considered the applicants have adequately addressed the Highway Authority's concerns.
The proposal should be assessed against General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 32 and 35 from the Strategic Plan, in addition to Policies RB/5 and CA/2 from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 which are intended to ensure that works to a Registered Building do not detrimentally affect the special architectural or historic character of the building or its setting.
To start with the positives, this proposal will result in the re-use of the Registered Building which has lain empty and in a sorry state, for some time now. The external envelope of the Registered Building is, with the exception of some minor amendments, remaining as it is.
Of some consideration to the internal works specifically, is that The Douglas has been altered at least two periods in its recent history. The existing second floor layout is a result of alterations in 1935 by architects Lomas and Barrett. These are in addition to alterations to the ground and first floor that were understood to have been carried out in 1895. Clearly there is little 'original' fabric remaining other than perhaps floors, staircase and outer masonry walls, but that that remains should be preserved for its future. With this in mind, the following is the consideration of the internal works to The Douglas:
Proposed is the removal of some partition walls, the insertion of a goods hoist, lift pit and secure store. Given the importance of the site historically, Manx National Heritage should be involved during the excavation works. The proposals do in the main, fit in with the existing fabric and should have a minimal impact on that fabric. Indeed, the Structural Appraisal makes reference to the installation of the lift stating; "the lift installation would be within the basement of the Douglas Hotel passing through the superstructure causing minimal disturbance. The installation of the lift shaft and the stair amendments can be achieved with minimal disruption to the superstructure of the Douglas Hotel".
The works will have an impact upon the historic cellars. These structural works will need to be handled with some care and delicacy as to avoid detrimentally impacting on the cellars. The current Structural Scheme would appear to have had consideration of this stating that "A grillage of reinforced concrete ground beams is proposed to span across the barrel arch basements".
In many ways, it is this floor which takes the brunt of the proposals. The proposed works all but removes the existing gable party wall of The Douglas with the adjoining building, in order to open up the plan. There is large scale removal of the fabric and replacement with new partition walls. Essentially, the front wall on to the quayside is retained along with the gable end on to the market buildings, the former rear wall and the staircase. On balance and having had regard to the actual amount of historic fabric still intact in this part of the building and with the exception obviously of the gable wall itself, these proposals are acceptable.
The major works associated with the maximisation of the modern floorplate from the Farmers and the Clarendon has its major impact on The Douglas here. In practice the existing floor plans suggest that this will take the form of the removal of relatively recent partitions etc, forming modern bedrooms. The creation of the toilets forms an extension to what was originally a rear stair tower that has been engulfed in a poor rear annexe. The impact of this on the remaining early historic fabric is actually fairly minimal.
In essence, the proposals for both floors are the same and entail the removal of existing partitions, the penetration of the section via the lift, the creation of the toilets to the rear of the plan and some blocking-up of former windows etc. Whilst these proposals are fairly invasive, it is considered that in the main, the impact of this on the remaining historic fabric is actually fairly minimal. The Structural Appraisal states that "While the upper floors to the Douglas are uneven and in a poor condition,
strengthening work could be carried out in order that they meet the requirements for modern office accommodation". This information is not explicit in the application and will need to be conditioned if approved. In addition, the change in level will entail the alteration of the existing staircase. This is detailed within the application and appears acceptable.
Elevationally that proposed essentially draws upon the design of the two existing buildings on the site without actually faithfully reproducing it. The initial scheme now amended, created a large building alongside the Douglas which it was considered had a negative impact of the registered building. The revised scheme reintroduces the idea of a façade subdivided into two buildings which lessens the impact of these proposals on the setting of the Registered Building and are more successful in doing so. The proposed rear elevations, facing on to Lord Street are an enhancement on the existing and are therefore acceptable.
There is little doubt that the only reason The Farmer's and The Clarendon need to be demolished is to accommodate the requirements of this scheme. Whilst the Structural Engineer's Report alludes to the condition of the buildings, that condition would not appear sufficient to necessitate the demolition of the buildings on grounds of condition alone. Whilst neither building appears on the Protected Buildings Register, the historic appraisal accompanying this application suggests that they were constructed in or after 1808 which makes them of interest historically.
In conclusion, these proposals are considered to have been finely balanced. Of consideration, is that the buildings have all been in dilapidated state for a long time and the current economic climate is such that similar building works are not being taken up. There is little doubt that the demolition of two buildings in such a prominent location within the North Quay Conservation Area, immediately adjacent to a similarly prominent and important historic building in The Douglas, could be viewed as detrimental. The accompanying information to the application seeks to justify the proposals and indeed, goes some way to do just that.
In an ideal world, more of the fabric of the two neighbouring properties would have been retained and the proposed micro brewery integrated within the historic basement beneath, an amalgam of the old and the new public houses. Modern desires to maximise office floorplates, seek to remove changes in level etc have driven the design rather than a scheme that uses the historic fabric of the three buildings as a generator for a new scheme. On balance, the design of replacement building for The Farmer's and The Clarendon, effectively mirrors that to be demolished which is considered to be neutral in terms of whether this preserves or enhances the conservation area. Undoubtedly, the man in the street will see a Registered Building that has been 'restored' and a pair of new, pristine buildings adjoining it that look very similar to those demolished.
It is recommended that planning permission and registered building consent be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.
The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Highways Division of the Department of Transport is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society do not have sufficient interest in the site to be afforded interested party status in this instance.
Manx National Heritage has commented on planning matters and has sufficient interest in the historic environment and therefore should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupiers of No. 9 Fort William, given their distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
The comments from the Manx Electricity Authority are not a material consideration and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 02.03.2011
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This consent relates to alterations and part demolition of the Douglas Hotel and demolition of remainder of the site to create offices and public house as shown in drawing numbers SC1183/P/0001, SC1183/P/00-02, SC1183/P/00-03 and SC1183/P/10-00 date stamped 28th June 2010; SC1183/P/12-01 Rev.B and SC1183/P/18-01 Rev A B date stamped 23rd November 2010; SC1183/P/10-01 Rev A, SC1183/P/10-02 Rev A, SC1183/P/11-01 Rev A and SC1183/P/25-01 Rev A date stamped 1st December 2010; Design statement prepared by Savage and Chadwick date stamped 28th June 2010, Letter from J. Kelly of Heron and Brearley dated 14th September 2010, Letter from Mark Grace of Black Grace Cowley Limited dated 17th September 2010, Letter from Stewart Bradley of BB Consulting Engineering with accompanying drawing SK08 date stamped 1st December 2010, Assessment of Historic \& Architectural Interest prepared by Savage and Chadwick date stamped 1st December 2010, Photographic Survey prepared by Savage and Chadwick date stamped 1st December 2010, Structural Appraisal/Feasibility Study prepared by BB Consulting Engineers Limited dated 24 June 2010
C 3. No development shall commence until samples of the facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.
C 4. No development shall commence until details of the method of opening of the windows for the extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter the windows to be installed must be in accordance with the approved details.
C 5.
In the event that any of the windows on the Douglas Hotel have be replaced, it must be reported in writing to the Planning Authority indicating which windows that need to be replaced and with what style of window. The windows must not be replaced until written approval has been obtained from the Planning Authority.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of any development, a detailed scheme for the repair and retention of the existing floors within The Douglas Hotel shall have been be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter, the works must be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of any development, a detailed scheme for the infilling of the existing openings to the floor plans of The Douglas Hotel shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter, the works must be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
