Loading document...
The application site represents the curtilage of 1 Lake Road Douglas and a former warehouse building. To the south of the site, the area is being redeveloped to provide a residential complex with restaurant to the Quayside elevation. A Department of Transport car park is located to the west of the site. To the east is No.8 Bridge Road, which contains 3 flats. The site is located within an area zoned for mixed use, particularly Town centre, within the Douglas Local Plan. The site is also within a Conservation Area.
The application is seeking planning permission to demolish a former warehouse building and to erect a 5 storey building containing 4 flats. The footprint of the building will be approximately 10.85m x 9.5m. The height of the building will be 15.6m. The building will be finished with a painted smooth render to match the existing adjacent building. The application is also seeking permission to retain the dormer windows in the mansard roof to No.1 Lake Road.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32, 33, 35 and 39, Housing Policy 6, Transport Policies 4 and 7
General Policy 2 states that "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
Environment Policy 35 states that "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and will ensure that he special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Housing Policy 6 states that "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
Transport Policy 4 states that "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."
The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
04/00956/B - Alterations and conversion of disused warehouse/shop to office accommodation (Resubmission) – granted 16.07.2004
02/02250/B - Alterations and conversion of existing warehouse/shop to office accommodation
07/02282/B - Alterations to approved second floor - granted at appeal on 13th August 2008
07/01294/B - Erection of a second floor for residential use, conversion of part of ground floor to residential garaging, bin storage/utility and conversion of floor floor to office and residential in association with new second floor - granted 16th October 2007
06/02071/B - Erection of second floor for residential use and conversion of ground floor to hot food retail, garaging/storage and second floor to office and part residential - refused 27th June 2007
Douglas Corporation has no objection to the application.
Highways Division of the Department of Transport have not commented on the application
The owner of the garage on Bank's Circus is very dissatisfied with the decision to allow windows on his boundary and overlook his property as to restrict any future development or returning to the original design of three/four floor warehouse /mill.
Heron and Brearly Ltd, owners of the Railway Hotel, Bank's Circus have objected to the application on the ground that the proposed development will restrict access to their property due to the height of the archway over the access lane.
The owner of Bank's Circus Car Park have objected to the application on the grounds that the dormers look directly onto their property and should their wish to build on the site the dormers would lose light and outlook which could prejudice any application for redevelopment. There are also concerned that the plans do not give sufficient detail about the dormer windows.
Standard Comments have been received from the Drainage Department of Douglas Borough Council, Manx Electricity Authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Local Government and Environment.
A resident of Port Soderick does not oppose the principle of the application and considers the proposal would appear to be an improvement on the existing and makes better use of an underutilized site.
Procedural Matter – Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 deals with the control of demolition in conservation areas. This imposes a requirement for consent for the demolition of non-registered buildings in conservation areas that is comparable to the control that exists over the demolition of registered buildings. It should be noted that a separate application for Registered Building Consent has not be submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration.
The assessment of this application can be split into two distinct elements. These are:
First, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area." Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "Any building which is located within a conservation area 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 and appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, 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 development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
Therefore, the application should be assessed against criteria similar to those as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. These are as follows:
The applicant's agents have provided a Structural Engineer's report which summarises the structural condition of the existing building. The report states that the structural condition of the buildings are as follows:
"The west gable wall has no foundation. It has been subject to movement and displays extensive vertical cracking. It is not suitable for further loading, and would need to be stabilized by underpinning, and/or tying to an independent structural frame, if it were to be retained.
The masonry has been damaged by vegetation which would need to be removed and areas rebuilt.
Windows and lintels would need to be replaced as would, baldly cracked, surrounding masonry.
Possibly the most difficult issue to completely resolve over any retained stone wall, would be the drying out of the masonry, treating it effectively to eliminate all dry rot spores, and making it waterproof.
The wall has no usually or uncommon materials or structural form, and in view of its condition, it is my opinion that the wall requires to be demolished and a new foundation and materials incorporated within the wall of the proposed development.
The front (south) wall façade is a result of a number of changes over the years. Most of it is rendered random stone, and it has a poor quality brick addition to the eastern half of the elevation.
It is almost certain that like the West gable wall, it has no foundation. The wall leans and bulges in a southerly direction, away from the building. It too is not suitable for further loading, and would need to be stabilized by underpinning, and/or tying to an independent structural frame, if it were to be retained.
Due to the number of openings in the wall, it would however require a virtual rebuild in order to address problems with lintels, both working and redundant. Any remaining masonry would have to be dried out and treated against dry rot, before re-rendering of the whole wall.
There is nothing structurally in the construction or the materials of this wall that warrant retaining the existing structure, and again it is my opinion that the wall requires to be demolished and a new foundation and materials incorporate within the wall of the proposed development.
The east gable is substantially featureless, and a patchwork of different low grade brickwork. From distant observation there appeared to be no significant cracking and its foundations are unknown.
The brickwork is porous, and would need to be dried out and treated before rendering or other waterproofing system, if it were to be retained.
In light of the evidence of differential settlement over the site, it is highly desirable that the proposed development has foundations designed to accommodate any potential further settlement.
For this reason it is recommended that this wall is rebuilt on an integrally designed foundation of the whole proposed development.
The rear (North) wall, is almost impossible to view from the surrounding area. It is featureless and part brick and part rendered masonry. The points made relating to the eastern wall apply, although any masonry would require similar treatment to the other two walls.
The central party wall is highly likely to have a foundation, is cracked, and should not be subjected to further loading. It is saturated in places, and has a considerable amounts of rotten timber built into it. This wall should be removed.
The floors of the building throughout are generally inadequate for modern loading standards and have been subjected to water ingress over prolonged periods of time. They should be removed and new floors incorporated within the proposed development.
The roof has no special features. It requires retiling, lining, insulation, and its timbers replaced or refurbished. It does not fit in with the layout of the proposed development, and there is no apparent reason for retaining it.
With regard to foundations, the building has been built in a piecemeal fashion, on a flood plain which had almost certainly (judging from the hardcore found in the trial pit) been built on before. The new development requires an integral designed foundation capable of preventing the differential settlement displayed within the existing structure.
In conclusion, the building is severely dilapidated and any attempt to refurbish would require the approach and finance of an historic restoration. There is no structural benefit or value in retaining any portion of the building, and any aesthetic issues would be best met by the designer of the new development and the planning process."
It should be noted the agent has not submitted any costing for the refurbishment of the existing building to substantiate the reasons for their demolition.
The Conservation Officer has considered the conclusions of the structural report and has advised that he would like the Department's retained Structural Engineer to assess the structural integrity of the building. The applicant's agent has been advised of our intention for our structural engineer to assess the integrity of the building and the difficulty in arranging a site visit. However, the applicant's agent does not wish the application to be delayed and has requested that the application be considered by the Planning Committee.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
