Isle of Man

Government Railig: Lilan Vannin

Everest Conservatories Unit 7 North Orbital Commercial Park Napsbury Lane St Albans AL1 1XB

Town and Country Planning Act 1999

The Registered Building Regulations 2005

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Regulations, the Department of Infrastructure has DECLINED to give its consent to the works proposed by Miss Gail Fletcher-Cooke, under reference, 13/00641/CON, for Registered Building Consent for erection of a conservatory to rear elevation (RB no 80 in association with 13/00640/GB), Our Lady Star Of The Seas And St Maughold Queens Promenade Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1BH

The decision to decline consent was for the following reason(s):

1. The proposed conservatory, by reason of its size, form and design, would be detrimental to the architectural and historic qualities of the church, a registered building. The conservatory would be of an excessive size which would subsume the rear elevation of the church and would mask and compete with a number of important architectural and historic features. It would incorporate the historic single storey annex to its detriment. The timber clad box element which links the glazed framing with the rear elevation would appear bulky and clumsy. The use of timber cladding would also introduce an unnecessary additional material which would visually compete with the other materials used elsewhere in the scheme and which feature in the existing building. The horizontal off-set framing bars on the side elevation of the conservatory would give the side a cluttered and busy appearance when simple lines would be preferable. There are no details of rainwater goods and there would be a risk of water ingress into the registered building, particularly from the flat roofed box element. Furthermore, there are no details of the floor slabs on which the conservatory would stand. The submitted drawings do not accurately show the detailing and features in the existing building or how the conservatory would impact on them. There is insufficient justification for the design of the conservatory or demonstration that it would respect the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building. Having regard to the above criticisms, the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007; and Policies RB/5 and RB/10 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

Date of Issue: 1st November 2013 M ballayher

Director of Planning and Building Control

Guidance Note

This decision was made by the Development Control Manager in accordance with the authority delegated to her.

Any appeal against this decision must be in writing and must be received by this Department within 21 days of the date of this notice.

Please note that in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Appeal Fees) Order 2013, Article 4(d), any appeal lodged must be supported by the appropriate fee (currently £ 150 ) in order to validate the appeal.

An appeal form and guidance notes (as those used for a planning appeal) are available from either the Planning Office, Tel 685950, or from the Department's website, http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/planning-decisions-and-powers-of-appeal/

A copy of the Officer's report which led to the decision, together with correspondence relative to the application, are available for inspection at the Department.

If no appeal is lodged within 21 days of the date of issue overleaf, and this decision becomes final, the Department's public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House.

Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within THIRTY DAYS following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.

Department of Infrastructure, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF Tel (01624 685950) email; [email protected] 13/00641/CON

| Application No. : | 13 / 00641 / CON | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant : | Miss Gail Fletcher-Cooke | | Proposal : | Registered Building Consent for erection of a conservatory to | | | rear elevation (RB no 80 in association with 13/00640/GB) | | Site Address : | Our Lady Star Of The Seas And St Maughold | | | Queens Promenade | | | Ramsey | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM8 1BH |

Case Officer : Mr Edward Baker Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : 12.06.2013

Officer Delegation

Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION SITE

1. The application site is Our Lady Star of the Seas and St. Maughold Church, Queens Promenade, Ramsey. The site is an impressive church, a Registered Building (Number 080). The building is a Manx stone church of significant design, unique to the Island.
2. The site is on the promenade. It is rectangular in shape with the main entrance and frontage onto the South Promenade. The building extends deep into the site on its southern side. The building is 'L' shaped and comprises both a place of worship and a presbytery. There is a private garden at the rear enclosed by a high stone boundary wall.
3. The south side of the site has a frontage with Dale Street. At the rear is Mona Street. There are neighbouring dwellings siding onto the site to the north.
4. The site is situated within the Ramsey Conservation Area.

THE PROPOSAL

5. The application seeks Registered Building Consent for the erection of a rear conservatory. The conservatory is of a modern lean-to design, linked to the rear of the building by a timber clad 'box element'. It would have a depth of six metres and would be 12 metres wide, the entire width of the rear elevation. The glazing frames would be constructed from grey powder coated aluminium.
6. The applicant's justification for the proposal is summarised below:

• \quad The conservatory would provide a much needed meeting area

• It would be behind a high wall and would not be seen from the public highway

• \quad The conservatory is of light construction which would be low impact

• It would not compete with architectural elements and exterior of the building

• \quad The size meets the church's requirements but would not be overwhelming

• \quad Other than the dining window, the remaining lower windows are retained

• The Siberian Larch cladding would complement and not compete with the stone on the building

• \quad The grey framing would blend in well with the grey lead roof

• \quad The glazing is very energy efficient

PLANNING HISTORY

7. Relevant planning history is summarised below.

13/00640/RB - the Planning Authority is currently considering an associated application for planning approval for the same conservatory.

12/01346/CON and 12/01345/GB - planning approval and Registered Building Consent refused earlier this year for the erection of a rear conservatory. The reason for refusal was: 'The proposed conservatory fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Registered Building or the Conservation Area within which it is located. As such, the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Environment Policy 32 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In addition, the proposed use of uPVC is inappropriate and detrimental to the character and appearance of the building, contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 34 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development is not suitably justified and that it would have significantly harmful impact upon a Registered Building of considerable note.' 8. There are various other previous approvals for works to the building, none of which are considered directly relevant to the current application.

PLANNING POLICY

9. The area is identified as being within the Town Centre (mixed use) by the Ramsey Local Plan 1998.
10. The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are considered relevant.

Environment Policy 32 states: 'Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.'

Environment Policy 34 states: 'In the maintenance, alteration or extensions of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.'

Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, contains four policies that are also considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

Policy RB/3: General criteria applied in considering Registered Building applications, states: 'The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:

• \quad The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;

• The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;

• The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings).'

Policy RB/5: Alterations and extensions, states: 'In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Registered Building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.

Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence.'

Policy RB/10: Ecclesiastical buildings, states: 'The same provisions apply for registered buildings which fall within this category, as apply elsewhere. Contrary to the situation which prevails elsewhere, no exemption exists with respect to ecclesiastical buildings in the Isle of Man.

In considering applications for registered building consent for alteration or extension to buildings in this category, it is acknowledged that factors such as the size and requirements of modern congregations may differ considerably from when the church was originally constructed. Applicants considering carrying out alterations, extensions or improvements to ecclesiastical buildings which are registered, should consider the extent to which their proposals will affect the particular historic merit or architectural character of the building in question. An application is less likely to succeed if either of these qualities is markedly affected.

It must also be remembered that in addition to the requirement for registered building consent, it will usually be necessary to obtain the formal consent of the appropriate church authority: early dialogue can often assist in deciding upon the most appropriate way to progress such works.'

REPRESENTATIONS

11. Ramsey Town Commissioners - no response to date. Comments on the planning application - no objection, the proposed conservatory is not of a status or design that adequately reflects the importance of this Registered Building.

12. Friends of the Church of Our Lady - comments received according to the back office database (Uniform) but nothing on file. The group was asked to provide their comments again. They have responded by saying that they are content for the application to be refused.

ASSESSMENT

Historical background

13. The church was designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, the grandson of George Gilbert Scott, who was appointed in 1907 to design a new church and presbytery for Ramsey. The foundation stone was laid on August 3rd 1909 and the church officially opened in August 1910. Sir Giles was born in 1880 and educated at Beaumont College. He is best known for his prizewinning design of 1903 for the new Anglican cathedral in Liverpool. Although consecrated in 1924, the building was not completed until the 1980s. Other designs of Scott's include the new Bodleian Library at Oxford (1936), Bankside Power Station (now the Tate Modern art gallery) the Battersea Power Station (1927), and the new Waterloo Bridge (1939). He was also involved in rebuilding the Palace of Westminster after damage done during World War II and was the designer of the famous British red telephone box, an example of which is located in the rear garden of the church.

Background to the application

14. The application follows refusal of planning approval and registered building consent earlier this year for a larger and different designed rear conservatory. It is understood that the current application follows pre-application discussions. There has been an on-going dialogue between the planning officer, conservation officer and agent following its submission. This has primarily related to the Planning Authority's request for a proper justification for the new proposal, clarification of certain aspects of the design (e.g. materials) and specific criticisms of aspects of its design.

The effect of the proposal on the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building 15. The design of the conservatory is smaller and more restrained than the previous refused scheme. The materials are also changed from UPVC framing to powder coated aluminium. However, the conservatory is still considered to be overly large and fails to respect the design qualities of the registered building. The conservatory still extends the entire width of the rear elevation of the presbytery. It is also very deep, with a depth of six metres. The conservatory would partially mask the historic single storey annex at the rear of the church, including an ornate arched window. The effect of the conservatory would be to subsume the rear elevation to the detriment of the pleasant enjoyment of the existing rear elevation and its architectural features. 16. There is no apparent justification for the timber clad box element which joins the glazed framing with the rear elevation of the church. It is felt that this aspect of the design is overly bulky and of poor form. Various discussions have taken place concerning the specification of the timber cladding and these are still unresolved. It is felt that the timber material would introduce an unnecessary additional material which would visually compete and conflict with the existing materials and proposed aluminium framing. Furthermore, there is no justification for including this element in the design, no other aspect of the building incorporates timber. The off-set horizontal framing bars on the side elevation would give the side of the conservatory a cluttered and busy appearance when simple lines would be preferable. There are no details relating to the proposed floor slab which would support the conservatory.

17. The drawings supplied with the application are not detailed enough. For example, they do not accurately depict the historic single storey annex at the rear of the church and do not show the side window that would be partially masked by the conservatory. Furthermore, the drawings do not show how rainwater will be dealt with in general, particularly in the valley between the roof of the conservatory and end of the adjoining single storey element. The box element with its flat roof could give rise to standing water and water ingress into the church stonework.
18. The planning officer has relayed these concerns to the agent along with a rough sketch of a suggested alternative much reduced scheme which might be accepted. A meeting was offered by the planning officer but no formal response has been received. It is considered that the current proposal is a significant way off of a scheme that might be acceptable and it is therefore expedient to refuse the application.
19. It should be noted that there have also been concerns about inconsistencies in the depicted materials when comparing the technical drawings and artist's impression submitted with the applicant, and concerns that a charcoal colour for the framing would be too dark. These issues have been clarified and addressed by the agent to an extent although the drawings have not been formally re-issued.

RECOMMENDATION

20. It is recommended that the application is refused.

PARTY STATUS

21. The Local Authority, Ramsey Town Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d) granted Interested Party Status.
22. The Friends of the Church of Our Lady group have stated that they are content for the application to be refused. The respondent is also the applicant. Given that the group and applicant would appear to have a very close relationship, it is felt that it would be inappropriate to afford the group Interested Party Status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of 15.10.2013

Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval <br> N : Notes attached to conditions <br> R : Reasons for refusal <br> O : Notes attached to refusals

The proposed conservatory, by reason of its size, form and design, would be detrimental to the architectural and historic qualities of the church, a registered building. The conservatory would be of an excessive size which would subsume the rear elevation of the church and would mask and compete with a number of important architectural and historic features. It would incorporate the historic single storey annex to its detriment. The timber clad box element which links the glazed framing with the rear elevation would appear bulky and clumsy. The use of timber cladding would also introduce an unnecessary additional material which would visually compete with the other materials used elsewhere in the scheme and which feature in the existing building. The horizontal off-set framing bars on the side elevation of the conservatory would give the side a cluttered and busy appearance when simple lines would be preferable. There are no details of rainwater goods and there would be a risk of water ingress into the registered building, particularly from the flat roofed box element. Furthermore, there are no details of the floor slabs on which the conservatory would stand. The submitted drawings do not accurately show the detailing and features in the existing building or how the conservatory would impact on them. There is insufficient justification for the design of the conservatory or demonstration that it would respect the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building. Having regard to the above criticisms, the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007; and Policies RB/5 and RB/10 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 28/10/13

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

PA13/00641/CON Miss Gail Fletcher-Cooke Registered Building Consent for erection of a conservatory to rear elevation (RB no 80 in association with 13/00640/GB), Our Lady Star Of The Seas And St Maughold Queens Promenade Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1BH Planning Officer:

Planning history and constraint detail extracted from the planning database for this site, collated for the benefit of the Planning Officer on 03.06.2013, includes;

Listed Buildings: Address: St Maughold Our Lady Star Of The Seas And,Queens Promenade,Ramsey,Isle Of Man,IM8 1BH Grade: Conservation Grant application Description: Grant Appliaction to Replace railings & Gate, with repair to wall Reference Number: 01/00118/HB Address: Presbytery,Queens Promenade,Ramsey,Isle Of Man,IM8 1BH Grade: Conservation Grant application Description: Grant application for Repair /replace metal windows and the wooden frames Reference Number: 06/00027/HB Address: St Maughold Our Lady Star Of The Seas And,Queens Promenade,Ramsey,IM8 1BH Grade: REGISTERED BUILDING Description: Reference Number: 05/00080/REGBLD Address: St Maughold Our Lady Star Of The Seas And,Queens Promenade,Ramsey,Isle Of Man,IM8 1BH Grade: Conservation Grant application Description: Installation of steel railings, stone copings and entrance gates Reference Number: 08/00048/HB Address: Thie Yn Taggyrt,Presbytery,Queens Promenade,Ramsey,Isle Of Man,IM8 1BH Grade: Conservation Grant application Description: Window Repairs Reference Number: 08/00097/HB

Conservation Areas: Cons Areas: Ramsey Cons Area

Dev Control Polygons: Reference Number: 13/00640/GB Status: Pending Consideration Proposal: Erection of a conservatory to rear elevation (in association with 13/00641/CON) Reference Number: 06/00760/GB Status: Permitted Proposal: Installation of steel railings and entrance gates to replace existing (in association with 06/00761 CON)

Reference Number: 87/00594/B Status: Permitted

Note see 13/0640

Ed Baker 12/6/13

Proposal: Conversion of garage into meeting room and construction of new garage, St. Maughold R.C. Church, Queens Promenade, Ramsey

Reference Number: 05/00495/CON

Status: Permitted

Proposal: Retrospective application for the erection of a wrought iron screen between Lady Chapel and Baptistry, Reference Number: 08/01891/CON

Status: Permitted

Proposal: Registered Building Consent for the installation of a pipe organ to choir gallery (Registered Building no 80) Reference Number: 11/01133/CON

Status: Permitted

Proposal: Registered Building consent for the installation of electrically operated chime of bells and supporting steelwork within existing bell tower (Registered Building Nos. 80) Reference Number: 06/02153/GB

Status: Refused

Proposal: Installation of timber windows to replace existing (In association with 06/02154/CON) Reference Number: 12/01346/CON

Status: Refused

Proposal: Registered Building consent for the erection of a conservatory (In association with 12/01345/GB) Registered Building Nos. 80 Reference Number: 91/01705/B

Status: Permitted on Review

Proposal: Construction of new Parish Meeting room and garage, Our Lady & St Maughold, Queens Promenade, Ramsey. Reference Number: 06/02154/CON

Status: Refused

Proposal: Registered Building Consent for the installation of timber windows to replace existing (In association with 06/02153/GB) Reference Number: 12/01345/GB

Status: Refused

Proposal: Erection of a conservatory (In association with 12/01346/CON) Reference Number: 06/00761/CON

Status: Permitted

Proposal: Installation of steel railings and entrance gate to replace existing (in association with 06/00760 GB) Reference Number: 08/00703/CON

Status: Permitted

Proposal: Registered Building consent for internal alterations (Registered Building Nos. 080)

BC Case Polygon: Reference Number: 08/07205/OTH

BC Case Status: Application lapsed

Proposal: Alteration of existing unused choir gallery to provide music room and storage. Installation of two internal glazed panel lights fitted with toughened opaque security sheets. These will be internal only and not cut through the external roof or wall elevations.