Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01170/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01170/B Applicant : The Parish Of The Northern Plain Proposal : Demolition of Church Hall and clearance of site Site Address : Andreas Church Hall Andreas Village Isle Of Man IM7 4EZ
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.12.2019 __
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Before demolition of the Church Hall takes place, full details of all works of repair to 'Gladwyn' required as a consequence of that demolition must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and put into effect in accordance with the schedule of works in these details.
Reason: To ensure that the structural stability of 'Gladwyn' which is a valuable element in the streetscene due to its character and age, is protected during and after the approved works to the Church Hall.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of any demolition work, a survey for the presence of bats must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and if bats are found to be present, or potentially may be present, measures to mitigate harm to this species which is protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 must be provided. The development must be undertaken in accordance with this report, its findings and recommendations.
Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01170/B Page 2 of 12
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawing SM17/435/1 received on 9th November, 2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Gladwyn (address given as Ballaghaue Farm) as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018) they refer to the potential prejudicing of the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan through the unsatisfactory treatment of Gladwyn through the proposed works.
It is recommended that the following parties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
the owner of Austvooar Farm, Andreas, the Isle of Man Victorian Society and Hon Alf Cannan MHK as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; as they do not own property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This application was considered by the Committee at its meeting of 28th May, 2019 whereupon the members deferred taking a decision in order to visit the site. This visit took place on Monday 10th June, 2019. The application was re-considered on 24th June, 2019 where determination was again deferred as a submission had been received from someone interested in purchasing the property and the deferral was agreed on the basis that the application would be re-considered or potentially withdrawn if and when the sale was completed.
An application was submitted for the conversion of the hall into a dwelling (19/00748/B). This was approved.
The applicant advised in early December, 2019 that the sale had fallen through as the bank would not provide a mortgage.
The applicants for 19/00748/B were approached by telephone, e-mails and letter in the middle two weeks in December, 2019 to confirm why the sale was not completed but no response has been received to any of these communications. The applicant for the current application has requested that the application is re-considered. The property is currently again being marketed
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01170/B Page 3 of 12
through Chrystals estate agency at £195,000 with the description: "Potential for conversion and adaption to residential dwelling subject to the necessary planning permissions. This former church hall features many original features and of historic interest since being built in the 1830's. The building is generally open plan with vaulted ceilings and exposed beams, struts and tall portrait windows."
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of a church hall situated in Andreas village close to the village shop and the entrance to Kirk Andreas Church. The property has two dwellings very close to it - Mona Cottage to the north and Gladwyn to the east. The building is a modest, single storey structure built in stone. Mona Cottage and Gladwyn are vernacular properties which sit close to the road. Between them is the entrance to the site, formed by distinctive stone walls with the top half built of red brick. The hall is visible but not prominent from the road. Andreas Rectory lies to the south: this is a Registered Building (RB 255).
1.2 The site and existing building abut the rear wall of Gladwyn which appears to be currently unoccupied. A stream runs along the western boundary of the site which is a designated Main River. A small thie veg (outside toilet) sits in the south western corner of the site. Trees overhang the site. A right of way for Manx Utilities to gain access to the watercourse, runs through the site.
1.3 The access to the site presently affords no visibility in either direction from a point 2.4m back into the site. Added to this, there is no footway in front of the site which means passing traffic is very close to the front of any vehicle emerging from the site. The present access is so narrow that vehicles emerging have to cross onto the other side of the carriageway to turn in either direction.
1.4 The site was cleared in 2015, leaving only vegetation on the boundary with Mona Cottage which is on the neighbour's side of the boundary. This is a single storey property whose rear elevation faces south west, roughly parallel with the boundary wall abutting the application site.
1.5 The site was the subject of a recent application for the principle of the demolition of the building and the erection of three dwellings. This was approved by the Planning Committee but at appeal the inspector queried whether an application in principle could deal with the demolition of a building. It was concluded that it cannot and as such the approval was overturned. The inspector made a number of comments about the intention of the application and these are dealt with below.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the church hall and clearance of the site. As the hall is attached to another building and it is visible from the highway, the works are not exempt from planning control under Part 2 6(e) or Part 4 Class 36 of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.
2.2 The only plan which has been provided is a site plan indicating the footprint of the building to be demolished. The existing use of the site is described as "church hall (disused)" and the proposed use "residential". There is no indication of how the site will be used and the application has simply been described as "demolition of church hall and clearance of the site". The applicant also indicates at question 20 of the application form that should approval be granted for the demolition of the church hall, a dilapidation survey of Gladwyn would be undertaken by them to ensure that any works undertaken on site leave this adjoining property in the same condition it was prior to works commencing.
PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01170/B Page 4 of 12
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Residential. As such, there is a presumption in favour of development compatible with a residential designation, as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan which states:
"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 space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.2 There is also a policy which protects community facilities:
Community Policy 3: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which results in the loss of a local community facilities (other than shops and public houses) will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is no longer practical or desirable to use the facility for its existing use or another use likely to benefit the local community."
3.3 The application building is not identified in any published document as being of sufficient interest to Register. The draft Sector Plan for the north east, prepared by the Department of Local Government and Environment in 1990 identified a number of buildings to be considered for Registration, none of which was the application building: the Rectory was identified and is now Registered. The only Conservation Area proposed as part of that document was in Maughold.
3.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 sets out advice on alterations and demolition of historic buildings:
POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-
In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01170/B Page 5 of 12
question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings.
Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted. The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.
o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces, that in an age of rapid change, may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them.
3.5 There is a presumption against the demolition of Registered Buildings and those within Conservation Areas which contribute positively to the character of the Area as set out in PPS1/01 and Environment Policy 39.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most recent decision on this site, 15/00145/A is a significant and material consideration. This proposed the principle of the demolition of the existing hall and its replacement with three dwellings. The application was approved by the Planning Committee but the inspector at appeal concluded that the approval was invalid as there is no provision for approval in principle for the demolition of a building and as the demolition would not be available without planning approval (see paragraph 2.1 above) the application could not properly be determined.
4.2 The inspector did, however make comments on the merits of the scheme in case the Minister did not accept his recommendations. He states:
"41. The Church Hall has evidently been unused for some time, and this building is damp and in need of renovation. There appears to be a choice of halls for community use elsewhere in
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01170/B Page 6 of 12
Andreas. I accept that even if the requisite renovation work were carried out, it might be very difficult to attract sufficient bookings to recoup the costs that would be incurred. In the circumstances, the existing building would likely to remain unused and fall further into dilapidation, an outcome to be avoided if possible. I do not consider that the proposed development would be counter to Community Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.
Before demolition of the Church Hall takes place, full details of all works of repair to 'Gladwyn' required as a consequence of that demolition must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and put into effect before any of the dwellings hereby approved are occupied.
4.3 He goes on to comment on the ecological impacts of the development, those on the living conditions of those in adjacent property and highway safety, concluding that the development was not unacceptable in any of these respects.
4.4 He makes no specific comment about the architectural value of the building or the impact of its loss.
4.5 Planning approval was granted for the change of use of the building to include day care for children 08/01601/C. This has since expired and it is not understood that it was ever taken up.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners raise no objection (17.11.17).
5.2 Highway Services indicate that there should be no highway implications as a result of the proposed demolition works and clearance works within the site. On this basis, there is no highway objection to the proposals (04.12.17).
5.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer asks whether the bat report he suggested under the earlier application has been undertaken and refers to his comments made on the earlier application (04.12.17).
5.4 The owners of Ballaghaue Farm who also own Gladwyn which abuts the application building (this is inferred from the previous application), reiterate their concerns, expressed in respect of the previous application, and their tireless campaign to protect the church hall from demolition. It has been suggested to the Church Wardens that the demolition of the church hall will "rip the heart out of the Old Village", the "heart" referring to the group of buildings comprising the church itself, the Old Rectory, the Old Church School (the application building) and the attached Old Schoolmaster's House. Also referred to are Mona Cottage, Rectory Cottages and the replacement 1930s school. They suggest that this group of buildings is the historic centre of the village and should be treated as sacrosanct. Whilst they accept that its current form, through a succession of well meaning alterations including the installation of plastic framed windows, it is still a fine Manx stone building in the vernacular idiom as is the
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01170/B Page 7 of 12
attached house, and should be treated as such. They query the financial cost of repairing the building such that it could be used for other purposes including a community facility and ask why the building has not been put on the market so that it can be tested whether someone else would want to refurbish and re-use it. They do not believe that the applicants have properly considered the total cost of demolition and clearance including the reparation of the adjacent house, against that of the refurbishment and re-use of the building. They consider that good sense is lacking and the implication is that self-interest is prevalent within the body of the Wardens.
5.5 If the application is approved, the owners of the adjacent property would point out that there is no mention of any repairs to the adjacent house and they wonder how the proposed works will be undertaken without adversely affecting the integrity of the house. They also point out that there are shared drains which may be an issue. They suggest that their only hope of a satisfactory solution would be that the required heritage reparations are "to their entire satisfaction" before any permission is granted or before works commence. They accept that the existing trees are not endangered by this proposal but are concerned that future development proposals may do so and that an offer to plant replacement trees should not be taken as an acceptable solution to the loss of the existing mature trees. They refer to bats which have been seen in the area and a bat report prior to any works commencing, would be appreciated. They suggest that if this application were in the heart of the Cotswolds, then one may only guess the chance that would have of succeeding which is why historic villages of that part of the world attract thousands of visitors and also that it was only through the persistence and perseverance of one man that the Laxey Wheel survives to this day. It is high time, they say, that the Island stopped demolishing what remains of their ancient buildings and heritage. If the application is approved they will do everything they can to have this decision reversed (05.12.17, 23.05.19, 19.06.19 and 20.06.19).
5.6 The Isle of Man Victorian Society object to the application and request interested person status (08.12.17). They suggest that the application should not be determined until it has been established what its contribution to the heritage of the village enclave, its past users and its potential for rejuvenation by an alternative use, has been determined. They suggest that the application "overlooks the findings of the Independent Inspector in paragraphs 42 and 43 of his Report". They provide a history of the village and the site in particular by explaining that in the days of tithes, Andreas was regarded as the richest of the Island's parishes and was the home of the Archdeacon. It appears to be the first parish to have a school and there is evidence of a new school having been built here in 1787. In 1832 at a meeting it was resorted to sell the school and build a new one on part of the Archdeacon's Glebe. This is the corpus of what is now Andreas Church Hall which was completed in 1836 at which point the old school was offered for sale. The Parochial School Master's House on the glebe is now referred to as Gladwyn. The school was extended in 1845 at the same time as the stone wall was built around the property in lieu of the fence and sod hedge. It was further extended in 1875/6 the school also served as a Sunday School and village hall as well as the meeting place of the Andreas Benevolent Society which has had to find a new home since the church hall was closed.
5.7 In 1852 when it was agreed to erect a Girls' School in the parish, the Rector gave another part of his glebe on condition that if the school closed, the building(s) would revert to the church. This occurred, along with Rectory Cottages, in 1887. The new Andreas School was built, on another part of the glebe land, in 1902/3. Whilst this has been extended, its original Edwardian core is still distinguishable. This corner of the village therefore contains the orginal school, the original School Master's House, the Girls' School and the Board School, a chronological collection of education buildings which no other parish on the Island has.
5.8 They suggest that the conditions attached to the previous approval should not be taken as a precedent and refer to the inspector's comments at his paragraph 42 which refer to the integrity of the adjacent house. They suggest that there should be a plan of the internal walls
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01170/B Page 8 of 12
of both properties along with an elevational drawing which illustrates what would be left, including any buttresses or supporting structures.
5.9 They refer to St. Jude's church hall, which is the same as this and which was converted to residential accommodation and is currently for sale. They note that the application building is larger and offers more scope for conversion. They consider that dealing with areas of damp, re-wiring, a new kitchen etc may not be a huge task and expense but just smaller elements for anyone wishing to have an unusual and historically important dwelling. They refer to the lack of information on bats. Whilst the area is not a Conservation Area, it could, given the information above, merit consideration for such. The Island has just celebrated its Isle of Architecture with the intention of awakening public awareness as to the buildings around us and their importance to present and future generations. Planning decisions should be pro- active rather than re-active. They suggest that no information has been provided to show that the building is in a dangerous condition and needs to be demolished and as there is no redevelopment plans, there is no betterment of the streetscape as a result of the removal of the building. They believe that the building is capable of renovation in the right hands. They suggest that the Commissioners may have a conflict of interest as they operate another public hall and would benefit from this hall not being available for use (08.12.17, 10.12.17, 10.06.19).
5.10 The views of the then Conservation Officer were sought and provided as follows:
"From memory, I looked at this in the previous application and came to similar conclusions, i.e. that the building should be retained and re-used if at all possible. The difference on this application appears to be the correspondence from The Victorian Society which offers some valuable historic information on the building and therefore further reinforces the argument or retention of the building.
From a purely architectural/aesthetic point of view, the building is not considered of sufficient merit to warrant addition to the Protected Buildings Register (this is based on the evidence submitted, access to the 1869 OS map and Woods Atlas, but without the benefit of a site visit). However, it does clearly have historic interest as is set out within the correspondence from the Victorian Society. Certainly the wider site, including the Rectory set to the south east of the application site and itself a Registered Building - RB 255, is of considerable historic significance on the Island and the potential links between the two buildings are not too difficult to make. The Church Hall is doubtless a part of the church's land ownership (identified in the Woods Atlas) and therefore has significance in the development of the village. With time, the property would be researched to assess whether there is sufficient interest to warrant addition of the building to the Protected Buildings Register. It could be foreseen that there is the potential for Group Value as well as Historic Interest, but without that additional research, it is not possible to give a definitive 'this should be Registered' conclusion or not.
Given its central location in the village at such an important road junction, its former use as the 'Parochial School' and the aforementioned association with the Church, it is highly likely that the building played a fairly significant part in the manner in which the village evolved. If Andreas had a Conservation Area, such protection might be sufficient in the first instance, but in this case such a designation unfortunately does not exist. The building however, should be retained and re-used wherever possible as, but retention, conversion and re-use are preferable to demolition.
In conclusion and accepting that a full assessment of the property and its significance for addition to the Protected Buildings Register has not been carried out, the loss of buildings of this potential interest should be avoided" (05.01.17).
5.11 The later appointed Registered Buildings Officer, who is no longer with the Department, also supported the view that the loss of the building should be avoided "without attempts having first been made to secure its future through alternative use" (23.08.18).
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01170/B Page 9 of 12
5.12 Hon. Alf Cannan MHK objects to the loss of the building, considering that if the property were priced appropriately it could be sold to someone who could retain and refurbish it. He describes the building as a fine example of Manx stone craft and construction dating from the mid 1800s and is in pretty good condition for its age (11.06.19).
5.13 A representation was received on 21.06.19 from Austvooar Farm, Andreas Road which indicated that the owner's daughter and her boyfriend have made an offer on the property for conversion to residential use.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 Whilst the previous application in principle was refused, this was not for reasons relating to the merits of the application. The comments of the inspector conclude that the development is not in conflict with Community Policy 3 and that the demolition of the building is not objectionable subject to a condition which requires details of the works required to protect the stability and weatherproof qualities of 'Gladwyn'. There is nothing to now suggest that these conclusions are incorrect. Whilst the loss of our older buildings are often regrettable, there must be a viable use for such structures in order that they can be maintained. Without such a use, buildings fall into dilapidation which is not in the public interest nor that of those living close by. It is also relevant that the reason that the building cannot be demolished without planning approval is nothing to do with the merits or interest of the building but the fact that it is attached to something else.
6.2 It is also relevant that the inspector who considered the previous application, was aware of the situation regarding the adjacent property and yet recommended that a condition could be attached to safeguard the integrity of that building and did not raise an over-riding objection on this basis.
6.3 Since the previous decision, the owners placed the property on the market. The suggested sale price was £195,000 and in the sales particulars it stated, "Development opportunity. No onward chain. Close to local amenities. Large plot. Previous planning history. Investment opportunity. No demolition. Potential for conversion and adaption to residential dwelling subject to the necessary planning permissions. This former church hall features many original features and of historic interest since being built in the 1830's. The building is generally open plan with vaulted ceilings and exposed beams, struts and tall portrait windows.
6.4 The estate agents previously advised on 03.05.19 that they were instructed to market the property at the end of January 2019 and whilst there was an initial flurry of interest with around 12 interested persons viewing the property with the intention of converting the interior to a form of habitable accommodation subject to the relevant permissions. However, to date they had not received any offers despite marketing the property using various media. The feedback received was that from closer inspection, potential purchasers were frightened off by the scale of works required to bring it to any form of suitable accommodation. Further discussion with the agent for one prospective purchaser who had gone as far as seeking pre- application advice on the conversion of the building, supported this view, indicating that when he had estimated the cost of making the property comply with Building Regulations and making it water and weather-tight and properly insulated, the cost was prohibitive and he was not going to proceed with making an offer. Since then, an offer was made and accepted and planning approval sought and granted for the conversion of the building to a dwelling. However, this has not proceeded, the sale has fallen through and the property is again being marketed for sale.
6.5 Having offered the property for sale, it is clear that there is little appetite to acquire the property, and that which there was was not apparently shared by the financial lender, despite the advertisement clearly suggesting that alternative uses would be potentially acceptable. As
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01170/B Page 10 of 12
such, whilst there is clear historical interest in the property, the building is unlikely to be used such that its maintenance can be assured.
6.6 Advice from the Cabinet Office from January, 2018 indicates that the designation of a Conservation Area is not something that CO is in a position to conduct at that time as their resources are directed towards the Area Plan for the East. The Area Plan has been through the public inquiry stage and the CO has issued a call for sites for development in the north and west with a view to producing Area Plan(s) for these areas so it is unlikely that this position has changed. The applicant has asked that the application be determined without further delay.
6.7 Advice on the demolition of Registered Buildings or buildings within a Conservation Area, whilst accepting that the building is not Registered nor within a CA, is set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01. The applicant has tried to market the site without success and discussion with a prospective purchaser indicates that the cost of the work required to make the building habitable is prohibitive. If this is the case with residential use which brings perhaps the highest value to the property, it is unlikely that a non-residential use, for example as a community facility, would be more financially attractive or successful.
6.8 On balance, given the conclusions of the previous inspector on the loss of a community facility and the efforts undertaken since to sell the property and the feedback therefrom and taking into consideration the lack of RB or CA status of the site, it is considered that the demolition of the hall is acceptable.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the Development Plan and the application is supported subject inter alia, to a condition which requires that a bat report is undertaken prior to any demolition.
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:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...06.01.2020
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/01170/B Page 11 of 12
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/01170/B Page 12 of 12
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 06.01.2020
Application No. :
17/01170/B Applicant : The Parish Of The Northern Plain Proposal : Demolition of Church Hall and clearance of site Site Address : Andreas Church Hall Andreas Village Isle Of Man IM7 4EZ
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee did not accept the Planning Officer's recommendation and refused the application at its meeting of 6th January, 2020 for the following reasons:
It has not been demonstrated that opportunities for alternative use for, and therefore future maintenance and upkeep of the building have not been fully exhausted through the offer for sale of the property at a price reflective of the nature of the property and its context. As such, given the historic interest of the building and its surroundings, and given that the building is partly visible by the public, the demolition of this building would be detrimental to the history of the village and the character of the area, contrary to General Policies 2c and 2g.
The demolition of the building could adversely affect the structural integrity of the adjacent building and the amenities of that building, Gladwyn, and as such the development is contrary to General Policy 2gm particularly as no details of how the building would be demolished whilst protecting the integrity of Gladwyn, have been provided.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal