Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90806/B Applicant: A.D. Hewett Dental Practise Proposal: Removal of front door and replacement of ground floor shopfront fenestration Site Address: 86 Bucks Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3AG Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Site Visit: 31.10.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed replacement shopfront would remove the street-facing entrance and introduce a fully frosted, seamless glazed frontage, resulting in a dead frontage that erodes the established pattern of active frontages along Bucks Road. The design fails to respect the architectural rhythm of the terrace and the proportional relationship between the ground and upper floors, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, d) and Strategic Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which require development to respect and enhance local character and integrate successfully with its surroundings. - R 2. The proposal introduces a fully frosted, seamless glazed frontage without a street-facing door, creating an inert treatment that disrupts the established pattern of active frontages along Bucks Road. While modern shopfronts exist in the wider area, these retain street-facing doors and visual permeability. The presence of modern interventions does not justify further erosion of character, particularly where the scheme fails to align with the principles of Planning Circular 7/89 (Shop Fronts), which require respect for scale, rhythm, and openness. The proposal therefore fails to maintain the sense of engagement expected in commercial streets, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c) and Strategic Policy 3. - R 3. The site lies immediately adjacent to a designated Conservation Area. The removal of the entrance door and introduction of a fully frosted, seamless pane would create a discordant element that interrupts the established rhythm of the terrace and diminishes the architectural integrity of the street edge. The proposal therefore fails to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area and conflicts with Environment Policy 36, which requires development near Conservation Areas to avoid detriment to important views into or out of the Conservation Area. ## Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Douglas City Council - No Objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of 86 Bucks Road, Douglas, located on the eastern side of Bucks Road just north of Christian Road and opposite Merton Bank. The property forms part of a continuous terrace of commercial frontages close to the junction with Christian Road. It is arranged over three storeys, with the ground floor in retail use and the upper floors likely accommodating residential flats. - 1.2 The building is finished in a grey spar-dash render with white-painted detailing around the windows and horizontal banding between floors. The upper floors contain two vertically aligned sash-style windows at each level, framed in white, beneath a pitched roof with chimney stacks at either end. At ground level, the existing shopfront comprises a timber-framed door and arched display windows beneath a dark-painted fascia. - 1.3 The property sits within a varied streetscape. To the south, No. 84 Bucks Road features a modernised shopfront with a flat, full-height glazed frontage and bold signage, contrasting with the traditional timber-framed design of No. 86. To the north, the adjoining property retains a more conventional appearance with a rendered finish and traditional shopfront detailing. This mix of styles contributes to a visually diverse frontage along this section of Bucks Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Removal of front door and replacement of ground floor shopfront fenestration. - 2.2 The proposed works would include:

• 1. Removal of the existing timber-framed door and arched display windows forming the current shopfront.
• 2. Installation of a new aluminium-framed shopfront designed to match the adjoining modern frontage.
• 3. Provision of seamless, full height glazed panels constructed from safety glazing.
• 4. Application of frosted glass treatment to provide privacy and a clean contemporary appearance.
• 5. Minor adjustments to the existing fascia to integrate the new shopfront design.

2.3 The proposal also includes the incorporation of dental practice manifestations and imagery on the glazing for branding and identification. This element constitutes an advertisement and would fall under the scope of separate application under the Advertisement Regulations, and as such would not be assessed as part of the current planning application.

2.5 The applicants have provided a Planning statement which details the following:

• 1. The property was formerly occupied by Magoo's opticians, and the unit is currently vacant.
• 2. The proposed alterations are intended to facilitate the expansion of the adjoining dental practice at No. 84 Bucks Road into this unit.
• 3. The Planning Statement notes that internal works are also proposed, but these are not part of the current application.
• 4. A brief planning history reference is included: PA 84/00220/B - alterations and additions to provide shop and dispensary at ground floor level with flat above (permitted).

2.6 Following discussions with the agent regarding concerns about the scheme, the applicants submitted an Agent's Response to Comments dated December 2025.

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Predominantly Residential" under the Area plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area, although its rear elevation adjoins a Conservation Area boundary with the front elevation situated adjacent a Conservation Area. - 3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application:

• 1. General Policy 2 - Development Criteria, ensuring developments are appropriate for their location, support sustainable economic and social outcomes, and do not harm the character of the area.
• 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Sustainable Development and efficient use of land and resources, promoting well-located, accessible development that contributes positively to economic growth without undermining sustainability objectives.
• 3. Strategic Policy 2 - New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.
• 4. Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced.
• 5. Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement.
• 6. Spatial Policy 1: The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island.
• 7. Environment Policy 36 - Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.

3.3 Planning Circular 7/89 - Shop Fronts 3.3.1 Relevant Sections: 3.3.1.1 The following principles from the Circular are considered material in assessing the proposed shopfront alterations:

• Paragraph 2 - General Principles "Surviving historic shop-fronts, and any others of character or quality, should be preserved." "New shop-fronts should respect the scale, materials, colour, and design of the building above."
• Paragraph 3 - Detailed Design

• (a) "Amalgamation of shop-fronts can destroy the vertical rhythm and character of traditional shopping streets, and should be avoided."
• (b) "Stall-risers should usually be panelled and/or rendered; where a stall-riser has been removed as part of a previous scheme, the next opportunity should be taken for its reinsertion."
• (c) "Chain-stores should be prepared to modify their 'house-style' in response to particular buildings."
• (d) "The scale of the building can often be successfully acknowledged by using window divisions."

Paragraph - Signage "Illuminated plastic box fascias are seldom appropriate, and never so in Conservation Areas." "Signage should be by painting the fascia or applying three-dimensional letters, preferably of wood or brass."

Paragraph 6 - Local Plans "Greater attention should be given to detail, such as lettering, door furnishings, and other ironmongery" in Conservation Areas.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of four previous planning applications, one of which is considered relevant to the current application:

1. Planning approval was granted under PA 84/00220/B for Alterations and additions to provide shop and dispensary at ground floor level with flat above, 86, Buck's Road, Douglas.

5.2 The following previous planning applications in the immediate locality are also considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

• 1. PA 13/00463/B for Installation of a replacement shop front, 84 Bucks Road, Douglas Approved. The approved scheme introduced a fresh and modern frontage that was considered a marked improvement on the dated appearance of the original, enhancing the overall character of the area.
• 2. PA 07/01512/C in 2007 for change of use from shop to dental surgery at 84 Bucks Road, Douglas, the adjoining unit which is in same ownership as the application site and would serve the same business as the current proposal.
• 3. PA 08/02007/B for Installation of replacement front door, 88 Bucks Road Douglas Approved.
• 4. PA 08/02006/B for Installation of replacement shop front, 88 Bucks Road Douglas Approved.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Douglas City Council - No objection (15 September 2025).

6.2 DOI Highways Division has not made any comments although they were consulted on 4 September 2025. - 6.3 Manx National Heritage have not made any comments although they were consulted on - 4 September 2025.

6.4 No Comments have been received from neighbours. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. Design Quality and Visual Impact: Whether the proposed alterations are of a high design standard that respects the architectural rhythm, proportions, and materiality of the host building and the wider terrace.
• 2. Streetscape Integration: Whether the replacement shopfront would integrate acceptably within the varied but visually sensitive streetscape, particularly in relation to the contrasting traditional and modern frontages immediately adjoining the site.
• 3. Setting of the Adjacent Conservation Area: Whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, in accordance with Environment Policy 36, by avoiding any detrimental impact on important views into or out of the designated area.

7.2 Design Quality and Visual Impact (General Policy 2(b, c, d); Strategic Policy 3; Planning Circular 7/89)

• 7.2.1 The proposal involves replacing a traditional timber-framed shopfront, which currently includes arched display windows and a central entrance door, with a full-height glazed frontage and aluminium framing. While the applicant argues that the existing frontage is dated and that the proposed design would create continuity with the adjoining modern frontage at No. 84, this reasoning does not outweigh the harm caused by the loss of traditional proportions and detailing. The existing frontage, despite its age, contributes to the architectural rhythm of the terrace. The proposed design represents a stark departure from this character, introducing a seamless pane that disregards the proportional relationship between the ground floor and the upper floors.
• 7.2.2 The applicant contends that frosted glazing is necessary for privacy and that similar large, glazed panels exist elsewhere on Bucks Road and nearby streets. However, those examples retain transparency or partial framing and, crucially, maintain active frontages with street-facing doors. In contrast, the proposed removal of the entrance door and full obscuration of the glazing would result in a dead frontage, eliminating visual permeability and street-level engagement. This approach conflicts with the principles of active frontage expected in commercial streets and fails to maintain the sense of openness that defines the existing pattern of shopfronts along Bucks Road.
• 7.2.3 Planning Circular 7/89 advises that new shopfronts should respect the scale and design of the building above and avoid amalgamation that disrupts traditional rhythm. The applicant's argument that other shopfronts do not align with upper-floor windows is noted, but those examples do not involve complete removal of access or blanking out the frontage. The proposed design fails to achieve proportional harmony and erodes the architectural integrity of the terrace by removing key elements of its traditional composition.
• 7.2.4 On balance, while the applicant seeks to justify the proposal on grounds of modernisation and business continuity, these considerations do not overcome the fundamental design shortcomings. The scheme fails to respond to the architectural context of the host building and conflicts with General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 3, which require development to respect and enhance local character.

7.3 Streetscape Integration (General Policy 2(b, c); Strategic Policy 3)

• 7.3.1 The application site forms part of a continuous terrace along Bucks Road, where the prevailing pattern is active frontages with direct street access. While the streetscape exhibits some variation in shopfront design, including modern interventions, these changes have generally retained transparency and street-facing doors, preserving permeability and engagement with the public realm. This continuity is a defining characteristic of the terrace and contributes to its overall coherence and townscape quality.
• 7.3.2 The applicant argues that the surrounding area, including Bucks Road, Prospect Terrace, and Windsor Road, contains a variety of shopfront styles, some of which do not align with upper-floor windows. While this observation is correct, the examples provided all retain active frontages with street-facing doors, except for corner properties where access is logically placed on a side street. The proposed removal of the entrance door at No. 86 would create a mid-terrace unit without direct street access, disrupting the established pattern and undermining the sense of continuity within the streetscene.
• 7.3.3 The applicant also contends that the proposed design would create visual continuity with the adjoining modern frontage at No. 84. While continuity between units can be desirable, it cannot come at the expense of eroding the architectural rhythm and permeability that define the terrace. Furthermore, the fact that some previous alterations may not align with best practice is not a justification for perpetuating those flaws. It is also unclear when those

changes occurred or whether they were assessed against current policy requirements, including the principles of Planning Circular 7/89.

• 7.3.3 Overall, the proposal does not reinforce the evolving character of Bucks Road. Instead, it introduces a treatment that disregards the established expectation of active frontages and proportional harmony. It therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 3, which require development to integrate with its surroundings and enhance local character.

7.4 Setting of the Conservation Area (Environment Policy 36 & Paragraph 7.30.1)

• 7.4.1 The application site is located outside, but immediately adjacent to, a designated Conservation Area. Environment Policy 36 requires that development in such locations will only be permitted where it does not detrimentally affect important views into or out of the Conservation Area, as these views contribute significantly to its character. The terrace forms part of the visual approach to the conservation area, and changes to its ground floor treatment can influence the perception of the street edge and its architectural coherence.

• 7.4.2 The applicant asserts that the proposed works are confined to the ground floor and do not involve alterations to the upper floors or roofscape, which are the elements most visible from the Conservation Area. While this is noted, the ground floor treatment is still a prominent component of the street scene and contributes to the character experienced in views from and towards the Conservation Area.
• 7.4.3 The applicant also argues that the design remains visually subordinate to the building above and that its restrained detailing avoids dominance. However, the removal of the entrance door and introduction of a seamless, frosted pane disregards the traditional composition of the frontage and its proportional relationship with the upper floors. This creates a discordant element that interrupts the established rhythm of the terrace and diminishes the architectural integrity of the street edge.
• 7.4.4 The presence of modern shopfronts in the wider area does not, in itself, indicate that local character has been eroded. Rather, it reinforces the principle that new design must respond sensitively to its site, the streetscape, and the immediate context. The proposal fails to achieve this, introducing a frontage that is visually inert and does not preserve the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area.

• 7.4.4 On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Environment Policy 36, as it would detract from the integrity of views and adversely affect the character of the area.
• 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed replacement shopfront would remove the street-facing entrance and introduce a fully frosted, seamless glazed frontage, resulting in a dead frontage that disrupts the established pattern of active frontages along Bucks Road. This treatment disregards the architectural rhythm of the terrace and the proportional relationship between the ground and upper floors, introducing an inert design that fails to integrate with its immediate context.

8.2 While the applicant argues that modern shopfronts exist nearby and that continuity with the adjoining unit is desirable, these points do not justify further erosion of character. The adjacent shopfront at No. 84, which was recently approved, retains its entrance door and provides a degree of transparency, maintaining an active frontage and visual engagement with the street. By contrast, the proposed design for No. 86 would remove the street-facing door and introduce a fully frosted, seamless pane, creating an inert frontage that fails to respect the established pattern of access and permeability. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2(b, c, d), Strategic Policy 3, and Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan, as well as Planning Circular 7/89, and is recommended for refusal. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 : Refused Date: 07.01.2026 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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.