90125

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/00288/B                                     Page  1  of  3

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 23/00288/B Applicant : Manxonia Ltd Proposal : Removal of two chimneys (retrospective) Site Address : Manxonia House Bay View Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man

Registered Buildings Officer: Mr Ross Brazier Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.04.2023 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual, amenity and highway safety impact to comply with General Policy 2 (b, c,) and also not to result in any visual harm to the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area as to meet with the principles of Environment Policy 35.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following; Architect's Design Statement 2102/05A - proposed Sections and Elevations (approved scheme) 2102/22 - Removal of 2no. Chimney stacks (revised elevations) 2101/01 - Location Plan Structural Engineer's Report Demolition Direction issued And all other information submitted on 8th march 2023.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons None

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/00288/B                                     Page  2  of  3

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to Manxonia House a prominent former Victorian school building on the southern corner of The Promenade and Bay View Road in Port St Mary. 1.2 The application sits within the proposed Port St Mary Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The applications seeks retrospective approval for the removal of two chimneys.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications, the most materially relevant are PA 21/00501/B which "conversion of existing office, residential and retail space to retail (class 1.1) and tea rooms (class 1.3)". The proposal included the change of use and a number of internal and external works to facilitate its conversion. This was followed by PA 21/01313/B which incorporated the adjacent residential property Overcliffe in to the development proposals whilst also providing tourist accommodation. Both applications were approved.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as 'Mixed Use' on Area Plan for the South 2013 (Port Erin & Port St Mary). As such, General Policy 2 which sets out the general standards towards acceptable development is the key policy in the consideration of this application. The site also sits within the proposed Port St Mary Conservation Area and so further consideration shall be given to Environment Policy 35 in ensuring no harm to its potential conservation status in the future.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services -After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised that Highway Licences may have been necessary for any equipment and materials to be placed within the highway for the duration of the proposed works do not oppose (22/03/2023).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the acceptance of the works undertaken without approval will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape or jeopardise the potential for adoption as a Conservation Area.

6.2 The applicant has stated that both chimneys were structurally and provided evidence to support this and justification for their permanent removal, rather than rebuild.

6.3 Chimney A, was functional and not part of the character of the building, servicing the old boiler room. It had been redundant for many years and was poorly maintained and given its location and position did not contribute to the building's form or the surrounding townscape character. Chimney B however matched the remaining stack located on the adjacent beach house, constructed in stone with a corbelled head detail, it would appear to be part of the building's original construction From the information submitted it would appear that given its condition, in part to the earlier removal of the supporting chimneybreast at ground floor and the failure of supporting beams put in at the time of this removal, the required demolition of the stack is not disputed, however the application seeks the approval for its permanent removal rather than re-build and therefore the impact of this permeant loss but be assessed and considered.

6.4 Stack B is of a significant massing for a chimney, however its location is not upon the principle elevation of the building and whilst positioned facing a highway (the Promenade), the character of the building on this elevation is very much a secondary elevation. The positioning of the stack upon the building below ridge height and between two valleys reduces its impact as a feature and

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/00288/B                                     Page  3  of  3

it considered not as prominent as the remaining stack on adjacent Beach House. These factors therefore limit its contribution to the character of the building. Given the justification for the loss it is not considered that the stack's contribution to the character of the building or proposed conservation area is so great as to require its rebuilding when taking into account the condition of the stack, and the benefits of bringing the building back into use.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed works are considered to not considered to result in any adverse visual impacts to the overall character and quality of the street scene, and the general appearance of the Proposed Conservation Area is to remain unharmed.

7.2 The proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual, amenity and highway safety impact to comply with General Policy 2 (b, c,) and also not to result in any visual harm to the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area as to meet with the principles of Environment Policy 35.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __

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 : Permitted

Date: 25.04.2023

Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan

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.