Officer Report 11/01384/CON

particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole." 18. Therefore, the application should be assessed against similar criteria to that as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. It is useful to understand what criteria are used in Policy RB/6. The policy sets out the following considerations: - "The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long-term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessments should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;" - "The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real effort has been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition." - "The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them." 19. 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. 20. The report states that the structural condition of the buildings is 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. 21. 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. They 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. 22. 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 within 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 3.0m deep. Excavation of this extent would require significant temporary works. Based on the water levels observed in the sumps a de-watering 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. 23. In respect of the adequacy of effort made to retain the Douglas Hotel, the applicant's 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]" 24. 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." 25. 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." 26. In respect of the merits of alternative proposals for the site, the applicant's agent has stated the merits are clear: - Significant investment in the retention and restoration of the Registered Building and offering it a long term future - A leisure offer at ground floor level unique to the Isle of Man and bringing further life back to the Quayside. - Commercial use for the upper floors on a full insuring and repairing lease which ensures that all the buildings will have a property and continued maintenance regime. - A significantly better architectural contribution to the Quayside and surrounding area. 27. 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." 28. The second part of the assessment is whether the proposed extension to replace the existing buildings is acceptable. 29. 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 streetsceen 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. 30. 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. 31. The other principal issues in assessing this application are a) Land use and b) Parking provision. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail. ### Land Use 32. 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. 33. 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. ### Parking Provision 34. 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. 35. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan states the "the car parking standards may be relaxed where the 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". 36. 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". 37. 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. 38. 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 building is next to all major bus routes and bus stops are located within 20 yards of the entrance. This allows staff excellent access to public transport should they wish to use it. - As part of the development 3 cycle stands will be provided. Given the facility for secure cycle parking it is hoped that this will encourage cycling. - The central location of the building means that the staff that live in Douglas and presently walk to work can continue to do so - The only office workers likely to require park would be senior management – hence the provision of four spaces in the original proposal. It is proposed that should approval be granted these spaces be found off site in a nearby location and it be a condition that they are provided prior to occupation. 39. 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. 40. 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". 41. 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. 42. 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. ### Highway Safety 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. It is considered the applicants have adequately addressed the Highway Authority's concerns. ### Conservation Officer'S Supplementary Report 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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: #### Basement: 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". #### Ground Floor: 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. ### First Floor: 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. ### Second and Third Floor: 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. ### Assessment Of Proposed Amendments 53. The amended scheme proposes relatively minor alterations to the approved scheme. In the approved development, the microbrewery was to be formed in the basement of the new extension. The amended proposal would now provide additional floor space for the licensed premises within the basement of the extension. A small change to the treatment of the ground floor, rear elevation fenestration of the extension is also proposed. The outward opening doorway which caused concern with the Highways Division has been amended so as to meet their requirements and those of the Fire Department. 54. The Building Conservation Officer has been involved in the assessment of this amended proposal and is content with the scheme now proposed. ### Conclusions 55. The proposed development is very similar to the recent scheme approved earlier in 2011. The alterations that are now before the Planning Authority for consideration are judged to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that approval be granted. ### Recommendation 56. Permit. ### Party Status 57. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: Douglas Borough Council 58. Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status: The Manx Electricity Authority has provided advisory notes which are not material planning considerations. The Highways Division and the Planning Authority are both part of the Department of Infrastructure. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded Interested Party Status. ### Recommended Conditions 59. At the time of consideration for the previous applications, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission and Registered Building Consent subject a revised set of conditions to those proposed by the planning officer. 60. Following discussion it was agreed to add a further condition that no demolition shall commence until a contract for the construction work has been agreed, and details of the contract had been forwarded to the Planning Authority. The Committee also discussed the time limits of condition 1 and it was agreed that given the prominence of the site and the condition of the buildings that the time for commencement of the development be reduced from 4 years to 2 years. This time frame is recommended again should this application be permitted. 61. The Committee also replaced condition 5 with the following wording: "In the event that any of the windows on the Douglas Hotel are to be replaced, details of the existing and proposed windows at a scale of 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the works being carried out. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details." This condition is proposed should this application be approved. ## Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.12.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of two years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This permission relates to the amendment to approved alterations and part demolition of the Douglas Hotel and demolition and redevelopment of the remainder of the site to create offices, Public House and basement licensed premises (In association with 11/01384/CON), The Douglas Hotel, Former IOM Farmers Retail Unit and The Clarendon Hotel, North Quay, Douglas as shown by SC1183/P/10-00, SC1183/P/10-02B, SC1183/P/11-01B, SC1183/P/12-01C, SC1183/P/00-01, SC1183/P/00-02, SC1183/P/00-03, SC1183/P/10-01A, SC1183/P/10-02A, SC1183/P/11-01A, SC1183/P/12-01B, SC1183/P/18-01B and SC1183/P/25-01A received 4th October 2011 and SC1183/P/10-01C.

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 are to be replaced, details of the existing and proposed windows at a scale of 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the works being carried out. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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.

C 8.

Demolition may not commence until a contract for the construction has been entered into and details of such a contract have been forwarded to the Planning Authority.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

Signed : ... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO