104159

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00132/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00132/B Applicant : Mrs Judith Thornley Proposal : Removal of a chimney Site Address : Beach House Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AE

Case Officer : Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 29.03.2018 Site Visit : 29.03.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.05.2018 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The chimney is considered to be an attractive, characterful feature the loss of which would cause substantial harm to the historic character and appearance of the building. The proposed works would not preserve the appearance of the dwelling and potential Conservation Area, and it is therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The application site is part of a row existing buildings located between the cottages on Bay View Road, sitting on the corner and around The Promenade, in the heart of Port St. Mary. The site and two further buildings are physically attached, including Manxonia House to the north and Overcliffe To the north west.

1.2 The buildings are an attractive stone faced structure which has two storey elements, roof accommodation and single storey annexes. The buildings attached to it are of a similar character and the whole ensemble has a school or church-like appearance. The front elevation bears a stone plaque that indicates that the building was built in 1880.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00132/B                                     Page  2  of  4

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the removal of a chimney located on the north elevation; the chimney is located on the side of the property, above the front courtyard area and the single storey porch, between the two projecting front gables of the application building Beach House and Manxonia House.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. It also lies within the draft Conservation Area which has yet to be the subject of a specific public discussion document.

3.2 The site also lies within the proposed Port St. Mary Conservation Area. The appraisal which was undertaken for this includes the following which is perhaps relevant to this site:

"By the mid 1890s the construction on the upper promenade was largely complete, forming an almost continuous terrace of high and narrow boarding houses, and wider hotels similar to those built on the promenades in Douglas. Owners of some of these guest houses were responsible for the construction of family housing built in Cronk Road and Victoria Road for their own occupation. Further development took place along Bay View Road consisting ground- floor shops with residential accommodation above.

A distinct division of uses was very apparent, with the northern end of the village being dependant on summer visitors for its livelihood. At the southern end of the village in the vicinity of the harbour laid a more mixed area supporting the fishing industry.

Whilst it is possible to enter Port St Mary from Fistard along Fistard Road, or from Port Erin or Cregneash, along Plantation Road, almost all vehicular traffic enters the village from the north. This can be either along Station Road from Four Roads, or from Beach Road. These two roads meet at the crossroads with Plantation Road, and access to the village is along Bay View Road. It is only at the junction of Bay View Road and The Promenade that a sense of arrival in the village is felt.

The oldest remaining buildings which date before 1869 include: cottages on the seaward side of Bay View Road, adjacent to the old school; a terrace of cottages at the lower end of the Lhargan and cottages on Lime Street. Many of these retain their original form and to an extent their exterior appearance in Manx stone.

Shop fronts are a particularly challenging issue within Port St Mary. Many of the retail premises at the northern end of Bay View Road have inappropriate shop fronts in timber or aluminium, some have oversized plastic signage. Only a few original shop fronts remain at this end of the village. Every encouragement should be made to retain and repair these, rather than replace them."

3.3 A number of buildings are identified as being worthy of consideration for Registration. These include the school house on Bay View Road which is thought to be part of this building.

3.4 The Strategic Plan 2016 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

3.3 The relevant extracts from General Policy 2 state: '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:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00132/B                                     Page  3  of  4

3.4 Due to the historic nature of the building and its location and prominence within the proposed Port St. Mary Conservation Area, Environment Policy 35 is considered to be applicable. This policy states: '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 the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development'.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.

4.2 During discussions regarding the proposal, a representative of the applicant stated that there was previously a chimney on the opposing, projecting front gable of Manxonia House that had been removed 10 years previously; however there doesn't appear any planning history that identifies these works, also there are no obvious signs on the external elevations of repair works that would indicate this. The north elevation of this building includes a large chimney that is in keeping with the age of the property.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is no highways interest in the letter dated 02 March 2018.

5.2 Port St Mary Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they do not object in the email dated 02 March 2018.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the proposed chimney is a key design feature of the historic building worthy of retention and whether its removal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the property in an area that has been identified as a potential Conservation Area.

6.2 The application site is a prominent feature in the streetscene and stands out amongst the adjacent building in part due to its materials as well as the schoolhouse design. Looking south along Bay View Road, the streetscene is characterised by Victorian buildings of varying styles and has a strong historic character. The adjacent cottages on the eastern side of Bay View Road and the taller terraces on the western side include numerous chimneys that add charm to the skyline above these properties. There have been some unsympathetic alterations to the wide group of buildings on this corner; however the historic design and materials are still very much apparent.

6.3 The chimney that is proposed to be removed is an attractive, Manx stone structure that contributes a significant amount of character to this part of the wider group of buildings. The chimney includes an ornate chimney cap to match the existing coping seen on the gables and has a buttress design that reflects the rest of the building.

6.4 The applicant has provided very little justification as to why the removal is necessary, or indeed how it would benefit the building or the surrounding area. The reasons cited in the application form include it no longer being in use, they allege that it has become unsafe and state that it is a potential source of internal dampness. At the time of visiting the site, there were no obvious signs that it was unsafe to the extent that its removal would be required and no evidence to support this has been provided. The ingress of water would likely be a maintenance issue that could be rectified. Neither of these issues would outweigh the substantial harm that the removal of the chimney would have on the character of this historic building and the surrounding area.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00132/B                                     Page  4  of  4

CONCLUSION 7.1 The chimney is considered to be an attractive, characterful feature the loss of which would harm the historic character and appearance of the building. The proposed works would not preserve the appearance of the dwelling and potential Conservation Area, and it is therefore concluded that the application conflicts with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore the application should be refused.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 08.05.2018

Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER

Chris Balmer

Senior Planning Officer

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.