Proposals for an £80m redevelopment of the long-vacant Lord Street bus station site in Douglas are being recommended for refusal.

Lord Street Development SPV Ltd’s application (25/90516/B) will go before the island’s planning committee on Monday.

The proposals include a 12-storey apartment block, making it the tallest building in Douglas.

But it is not this which is being cited as a reason for the application being recommended refusal.

Instead, the planning officer says that the lack of affordable housing and public open space ‘are too great of a departure from established planning policies to approve’.

The application is for the erection of up to 12 storeys of mixed use development including a multiscreen cinema, 85 residential apartments with private parking, and 12 retail/leisure/restaurant units and office space.

In addition, five bus stands on Lord Street with passenger waiting areas would be provided together with a travel information centre, public toilets and bus driver welfare accommodation.

In his report, planning officer Chris Balmer acknowledged that the design ‘may not be to everyone’s taste’.

He said: ‘The tower section of the proposal at 12 storeys tall will have a significant visual impact from certain identified locations as well as having a significant change to the character and openness of the adjacent street scenes.

‘Notwithstanding this, it is considered the proposal would represent a contemporary designed development in proportion, form and finishes which would be beneficial to the existing variation of deign styles in the area.

‘The mass, size and scale of the buildings are substantial, and there should be no doubt that the building would become a prominent feature from a number of locations identified in this report.

‘However, it is considered this site is a size and on a prominent corner plot which can accommodate the size, scale and mass of development.’

The original application was for an even taller tower of 14 storeys.

But this was reduced to 12 after the island’s senior registered buildings officer raised concerns about the ‘potential visual prominence’ of the proposed development, resulting in ‘visual intrusion within the Douglas Bay landscape’.

The height of the cinema block was reduced by one-storey, lowering the elevations to Chapel Lane, Lord Street, and New Bond Street facing the Douglas Hotel.

Despite these changes, the registered buildings officer said he remains of the opinion that the scheme would result in a ‘negative impact on the significance’ of the North Quay Conservation Area, the Market Halls and the former Douglas Hotel.

Seventeen letters of objection were received from island residents and organisations including Save Mann’s Heritage and The Society For The Preservation Of The Manx Countryside And The Environment.

They cited concerns over overdevelopment, the scheme being out of character for the historic site and building being too tall and overbearing. It will be seen for miles around and be a unsightly blot on the landscape, they said.

The applicant’s planning statement described the proposed development as an ‘immediate and significant opportunity to define the urban realm and create a confident, modern external facing quarter for Douglas that reflects its status as one the main entry points to the island’.

A proposed multi storey car park would have 94 car parking spaces for the residents of the apartments only.

No affordable housing provision or public open space is proposed to be provided, either in the form of physical units/space or commuted sum payments.

Planning guidance states that 25% of the total number of dwellings should be affordable homes - or the developer should pay a commuted sum equivalent in this case to £1,100,750 in lieu of 21.25 affordable units.

But the applicant had previously that it did not wish to provide affordable apartments on the site as it was aimed at a particular category of buyer and would not be a suitable location for first-time buyers or for public sector homes for rent.

It argued that providing affordable housing or public open space, either physically or as a commuted sum payment, would make the scheme unviable financially.

In a statement, applicant Conor Bradley said they ‘fundamentally disagreed’ with the sole reason for refusal and was seeking urgent clarification from the DoI and the planning authority.

He added: ‘We are not proposing “no affordable housing”. We have proposed a formal, legally binding review-linked mechanism, to be assessed post practical completion when the actual outturn costs, revenues and returns are known.

‘If the scheme outperforms and generates surplus above the agreed benchmark, affordable housing contributions would be paid in accordance with the agreed formula.’