Loading document...
Application No.: 24/00136/CON Applicant: Kirindolam 3 Ltd Proposal: Registered Building Consent for demolition of existing buildings on site - see PA 24/00135/B Site Address: 6 And 8 Bridge Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AG Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2024 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents.
Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory redevelopment of the application site prior to the existing building loss in accordance with Environment Policy 30 of Strategic Plan 2016 and that an unsightly gap or derelict site does not detract from the character and appearance of the area.
Reason: To ensure the development is served by sufficient cycle storage provision and refuse storage facilities.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
The proposed development is considered to amount to a high quality design which would ensure that the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area is successfully preserved. The development is therefore deemed to comply with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Spatial Policy 1, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35, relevant policies of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the registered building consent application be approved for the reasons contained within this report, subject to the attachment of conditions listed on any forthcoming decision notice.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and documents referenced;
_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status None
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to Nos. 6 and 8 Bridge Road, which comprise two conjoined buildings that front onto Bridge Road and overlook Douglas Inner Harbour to the east. No. 8 is semi-detached with a single vehicle width lane to the south that has double yellow lines along its length, whilst no. 6 is a mid-terrace building with the Railway Hotel attached to the north. The properties each have a small rear yard area with a currently open area to the rear of np. 8 following the demolition of a former warehouse building. There is a further warehouse to the rear of no. 6 - 1.2 The two properties are unique to each other from a design standpoint, with no. 6 comprising a three storey Victorian building with its front elevation featuring mouldings, string courses and cornice at first floor ground level and eaves level with a traditional chimney at each end and round headed windows on the ground floor. The windows are sliding sash although some are presently boarded up. The front door is centrally positioned and it too has a round headed with similar fanlight above the door. This building includes a basement. - 1.3 No. 8 by contrast is more modern in appearance including a double Roman heavy mansard roof, brick plinth above which is mock roughcast render work with horizontally proportioned plastic framed casement and fixed windows including three within the mansard level. Whilst this has three floors of accommodation, one is contained within the roof, leading to the building sitting lower than no 6 which in turn is slightly lower than the Railway Hotel.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Registered building consent is sought for the demolition of all existing buildings on site in connection with PA 24/00135/B for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide two new buildings incorporating Class 1 (shops) and/or Class 1.3 (consumption of food and drink on the premises) at ground floor level with seven apartments above (Class 3.4).
2.2 The new buildings have been designed to replicate what currently exists at number 6 and a continuation of this style in the new building in place of number 8. The opportunity to expand the available floorspace for the commercial units has been taken by the addition of a single storey of flat roof at the rear, occupying the remainder of the site but leaving the rear private lane free for access. Space for the storage of the refuse bins is provided at the rear with access from the rear lane for collection. The development would not be accompanied by any on-site parking provision. - 2.3 The application is supported by a structural survey which the submitted planning statement providing the following summary of its findings:
"The existing building at number 6 is in poor condition as is the warehouse building to the rear. There was a further warehouse between this and the lane - to the rear of number 8 which was demolished in 2022 due to its condition.
Structural surveys were undertaken of all three buildings in 2023 and are attached to this application. The warehouse, which is actually two conjoined buildings, showed signs of pronounced distortion in the roof of the three storey element, there was spalling evident on the north facing wall, a bow at first floor level in the elevation facing the lane and irregularities in the stone and brick face of the two storey wall facing the rear of number 6. Within the building steel beams displayed severe corrosion, timber beams showed decay and softening, support to the first floor joists did not appear robust. On the first and second floors the floor finishes exhibited pronounced sagging and did not feel secure underfoot with pronounced cracking to the walls with spalling finishes.
The conclusion of the report was that the building is in a very dilapidated condition and is not safe for occupation and in their view, the repairs would be uneconomic to undertake. It recommends demolition of the structure.
The survey of number 6 was undertaken in July 2023 and revealed that the render face of the front wall to each side of the front entrance exhibited a lean of 100mm over a height of 3.6m above ground level with pronounced vertical cracking at the ground and first floor window reveals with cracking to the first floor string to the front wall.
The timber lintel to the front wall exhibited decay and partial collapse. The timber lintel to the rear wall had collapsed. Internally the suspended timber floor finishes exhibited sagging and sloping and the front wall lintel was exposed with the wall and ceiling finishes exhibiting some spalling.
The conclusion was that the building is in a dangerous condition and whilst not in imminent danger of collapse onto public areas, the extent of deterioration and lean to the front wall will propagate further adverse movement, resulting in endangerment to the public. Structural measures to prevent further adverse movement of the front wall will be difficult and hazardous to implement. The condition of the front wall and internal structure represents a significant health and safety risk and whilst external shoring could be theoretically introduced to restrain the front wall, such an arrangement impacts the footway and would be unlikely to be visually acceptable. If the front wall were restrained, the decayed timber lintels would need to be replaced, effectively requiring the rebuilding of the entire front wall. Rebuilding the front wall is feasible whilst shorting the remainder of the building but the poor condition of the remainder of the building would not structurally justify retention.
Their recommendation was to demolish the building with support and waterproofing provided to the adjoining buildings and infilling of the basement taking account of surcharging party walls. Prior to this, the movement of the front wall should be monitored pending demolition and in the event of further significant movement, an exclusion zone should be introduced to safeguard passers-by.
The survey of number 8 was undertaken in July, 2023 and it was observed that there was vertical open joints and stepped and vertical cracking on the front elevation, sloping cills, distorted render and a lean in the rear wall with a pronounced slope inside toward Lake Road. The conclusion here was that the building exhibits significant adverse structural movement which may have arisen during the construction of Quay West apartments around 2011. It recommended the inspection of the internal cavities to confirm the effectiveness of the wall ties and remediate if necessary and monitor movement of the external walls with inspection in 2 years' time with further suitable remedial work if then required."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site is subject to a fairly extensive planning history, which includes the refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide a 12 unit apartment block and a ground floor retail unit in 2012 (PA 11/00421/B). An appeal against this decision was ultimately withdrawn. Likewise, an earlier Registered Building Consent application to demolish the existing buildings was also refused in 2012 (PA 11/00422/CON) with the subsequent appeal against the decision also withdrawn. - 3.2 Prior to this, permission was refused in 2009 (PA 09/0909/F) to demolish the existing outbuildings at the rear of the principal building.
3.2 Further applications submitted and ultimately granted relate to the conversion of residential units to officer use (PA 07/02321/B) and conversion of the ground and first floor to a restaurant and wine bar (PA 07/2320/B). Likewise, additional applications in relation to replacement fenestration and modest alterations have been granted permission in the past. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY
"The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern side which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side, industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. The Quays are also strategic freight corridors and maintaining access for commercial vehicles, including HGV's, must be considered in any proposed development. Due to the former industrial uses of South Quay, significant site preparation including decontamination may be required."
The site is further subject to Mixed Use Proposal 7, which notes the following: "There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay.
There will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay, including the potential re-positioning of the highway of South Quay between Old Castletown Road and Fort Anne Road, for new uses in the following categories:
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy
Environment Policy 35 Development in Conservation Areas
5.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Douglas City Council - The above planning applications were given careful consideration by the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 21/03/24 when it was resolved to support both applications subject to the following:
The Council would also kindly ask that the applicant gives consideration to the disabled access arrangements for the proposed food/drink space on the ground floor level of the development. (21.03.24)
6.2 Highway Services - No response received at the time of writing. - 6.3 Highways Drainage - No response received at the time of writing. - 6.4 Manx Utilities Authority - No response received at the time of writing. - 6.5 Flood Risk Management - No response received at the time of writing. - 6.6 Registered Buildings Officer - This site forms the boundary of the Douglas (North Quay) Conservation Area, and as such the tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act should be applied to any application(s). This requires that "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". The policy tests within the strategic plan and PPS 1/01 also apply. The buildings currently occupying the site vary in age. Number 6 Bridge Road and the warehouses at the rear are likely to date from the late 1800s, while number 8 Bridge Road is
believed to date from circa 1970. The structural report submitted as part of this application for number 6 Bridge Road lists various issues, the most obvious of which is the significant bow in the front (easterly) wall of the property. As buildings likely to date from the late Victorian era, number 6 Bridge Road and the warehouses to the rear are judged to make a positive contribution to the history and character of the conservation area. This contribution is considered to be limited, however, given the current condition of the buildings and the amount of historic fabric that has been lost. Number 8 Bridge Road is not historic, and its design is such that it is not judged to make any positive contribution to the character of the conservation area.
Although the loss of any historic buildings will cause a degree of harm to the significance of the conservation area, in this instance the buildings in question are not judged to be examples of the area's earliest buildings (they do not appear on the 1860s map) or to be the most representative example of their respective types, and their loss is therefore judged to cause a 'less than substantial' level of harm. Given the level of deterioration in the fabric of number 6, it is likely that any repair would result in the replacement of significant amounts of historic fabric. With this in mind, it is judged that the total loss of the building and its replacement with a building in a form intended to match the current building would result in only limited harm to the character of the conservation area. The replacement of number 8 with a building that's form, massing and style would seek to replicate number 6 as it currently exists has the potential to enhance the appearance of the conservation area. This potential enhancement, although mild, would to some degree offset the harm caused by the loss of the historic buildings on the site.
For the reasons outlined above, on balance I would judge the application to preserve the special character of the conservation area as the loss of historic fabric would be offset by the form and appearance of the proposed replacement buildings. (28.06.24)
6.7 Manx National Heritage - No response received at the time of writing. - 6.8 DEFA Biodiversity - General Stance
Additional Information The applicants must ensure that the buildings are demolished in full accordance with the avoidance measures for bats and birds contained in S6.1 of Ecology Vannin's Protected Species Report. We would add to these recommendations that thorough checks for bats and birds must be made throughout the buildings prior to and during demolition. (21.11.24)
7.1 The proposals seek a comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a total of 7 no. apartments (2 x 1-bed and 5 x 2-bed) arranged across the first and second floors, with 2 no. commercial units at ground floor. From a visual standpoint, the development would effectively replication the design, scale and vernacular of the existing building present at No. 6 Bridge Street following demolition, which would then be replicated at No. 8 following demolition of the more modern building currently in situ.
7.2 The structural survey submitted notes that the existing building at No. 6 is in a fairly poor condition and, whilst still displaying elements of grandeur and historic detailing, is presently in a deteriorated state and therefore goes some way to partially detract from the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene. - 7.3 The registered buildings officer has assessed the proposals in the context of their impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and notes that the loss of the existing historic building at No. 6, whilst in a poor condition, would result in a degree of harm to the Conservation Area. However, noting that the proposals would effectively seek to replicate the design, scale and form of the existing building, whilst further resulting in the loss and replacement of the 1970s building at No. 8 which is not in keeping with the locality, the officer has concluded that the proposals would, on balance, successfully preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. - 7.4 Moreover, any remedial works required to bring the current building at No. 6 up to a high standard in terms of practical living accommodation and ensuring structural stability would not doubt result in the loss of the majority of any meaningful historic fabric which may be present within the building. Moreover, when judged against the merits of the entirety of the
8.1 The proposed development is considered to amount to a high quality design which would ensure that the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area is successfully preserved. The development is therefore deemed to comply with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Spatial Policy 1, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35, relevant policies of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the registered building consent application be approved for the reasons contained within this report, subject to the attachment of conditions listed on any forthcoming decision notice. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:
9.2 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 12.12.2024 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
