DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/01326/CON Applicant: Care Developments Ltd Proposal: Demolition of all existing buildings on site Site Address: Eastfield Mansion House Eastfield Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4AU Technical Officer: Mr Thomas Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.11.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses. - R 2. The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character. - R 3. The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. - R 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. - R 5. The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

As the demolition works proposed within this application for Registered Building Consent do not involve any proposed alterations to or immediately adjacent to a highway, Department of Infrastructure Highways Division are not judged to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, and therefore should not be awarded Interest Party Status. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Eastfield House (named Eastfield Mansion House on the mapping system), a two and a half storey property occupying a corner plot at the western end of Eastfield in Douglas. The principal building dates from the 19th century and was originally detached, with a 20th century extension that attaches the property on its eastern side with the other properties in the terrace. The site is within the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks registered building consent for the demolition of all existing buildings on the site. There is no concurrent planning application (whether in principle or in detail) on the site for any replacement buildings.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions

• (3) In considering (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant 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.

• S18 Designation of conservation areas

(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.

• S19 Control of Demolition in Conservation Areas

(3) A building to which this section applies may not be demolished without the consent of the Department; and accordingly sections 15 and 16 apply to such a building as they apply to a registered building, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.

3.2 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas

• 7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering

proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to:

• o the condition of the building;
• o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long term assumptions);
• o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
• o the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.3 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man

POLICY RB/3 General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-

• o The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
• o The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;
• o The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings).

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with 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 or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those

• outlined in RB/6, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new 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, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole.

POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and

constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings. Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted.

The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.

• o 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 assessment 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;
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have 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.
• o 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.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The following applications have been made on the site:

20/00281/CON Status: Permitted Proposal: Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 20/00280/B 20/00280/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling

06/00605/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Re-roofing of building with slate to replicate existing

99/01614/A Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Approval in principle to construct 4 apartment building

97/00567/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of replacement porch and installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to front & side elevations

92/01197/B Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Alterations, first floor extension and construction of nursing wing

92/00095/B Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Alterations and extensions & construction of 35-bed nursing wing

86/00782/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Conversion to residential home for the elderly, extension to kitchen, and link corridor, 14 Eastfield and Eastfield House

86/00609/A Status: Permitted Proposal: Approval in principle to conversion of premises into residential home for the elderly and incorporation into Eastfield House, 14 Eastfield.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have stated that they find the application to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking (11.11.2022).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The pertinent issue to be assessed by this Registered Building Application is the impact of the proposed demolition on the fabric and character of the Conservation Area. It also important to have regard to the fact that section 19 of the Act states that sections 15 and 16 of the Act apply to the building as they apply to a registered building. - 6.2 Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, concerning the control of demolition in Conservation Areas, states that sections 15 and 16 apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building. Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to 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. The heritage report submitted with the application concludes in section 5.40 on page 30 that although the modern extensions and alterations diminish the building's contribution, the property does still make an overall positive contribution to the conservation area. As a mid to late 19th century building with surviving historic fabric, it is agreed that whilst in need of renovation, the property makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. It is therefore considered that preserving the building is

• desirable in terms of the tests within section 16 of the Act, and demolishing the building would clearly fail to preserve its features of architectural and historic interest.
• 6.3 Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan states that proposals for development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Conservation Areas. In addition to this, 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. Also, Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The western boundary of the curtilage of Eastfield House forms the western edge of the conservation area, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the conservation area boundary has been deliberately drawn to include the property. It is considered reasonable to judge that demolishing the historic building would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. As one of the older buildings within this area of the conservation area, the historic part of the building clearly makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and its demolition would therefore clearly fail to preserve or enhance the conservation area.
• 6.4 Policy RB/6 in Planning Policy Statement 1/01, and the preamble to Environment Policy 39 in the Strategic Plan, state that whilst there is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, consideration will also be given to four factors in respect of a building.

• o Firstly, the condition of the building. A structural report has been submitted with the application. Whilst this notes various issues regarding the condition of the existing structure, the report states that elements require replacement and does not at any point recommend demolition of the building. It is not judged that the building's condition is sufficient reason to justify demolition.
• o Secondly, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance. The property had most recently been used as a care home, until 2017. In 2020 approval was granted to return the building to a single dwelling. Some information has been provided within the submitted Built Heritage Statement (on page 31) regarding the cost of various options for the building and site. Clearly there would be a financial cost to renovating the building. However, given that the building is one of the oldest surviving in the area and is acknowledged to have historic and architectural interest, the cost of repair and maintenance is not judged sufficient in its own right to justify demolition. Clearly, adequate periodic maintenance and repair of the building as required during its lifetime would have resulted in a much reduced cost to any renovation now required.
• o Thirdly, the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use. It is clear from the submitted Structural Report that almost no effort has been made since 2017 to address the issues with the building that now exist. Although approval was granted in 2020 to return Eastfield House to a single dwelling, it appears that very little (if any) of the works approved have been undertaken.
• o Finally, the merits of alternative proposals for the site. The Built Heritage Statement submitted with the application describes an alternative proposal to construct five dwellings on the site. However, no application has been submitted to propose the site's redevelopment. This application is solely for the demolition of all the buildings on the site. The merits of any alternative proposals cannot therefore be adequately assessed, as none have been applied for. In terms of applications currently lodged or previously approved, all that would result from the demolition of all the buildings on the site is a vacant site in the conservation area.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 It is judged that the proposal fails to protect or enhance the fabric of the Conservation Area, nor would it preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. As such, the proposal fails to meet the tests of Sections 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999; Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan 2016; and

• policies RB/3, RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
• 8.0 INTERESTED PERSONS STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) Manx National Heritage; and
• (c) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated

• 8.2. In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 01.12.2022 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.