Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00405/B
Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00405/B Applicant : Mr William McHarrie Proposal : Removal of a chimney Site Address : 4 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AB
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 18.05.2016 Site Visit : 18.05.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is 4 Malew Street, Castletown, which is a mixed use property - at ground floor it is occupied by a butcher while above it is in residential use - situated near to the recently completed regeneration works to the Market Square. It is within the town's Conservation Area and the rear of the property is visible from the grounds of Castle Rushen.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of a concrete-covered chimney stack at the rear of the property. It is understood that the chimney is redundant and despite many attempts to seal the roof water ingress continues to cause damage - a photograph demonstrating the latter has been submitted with the application.
2.2 The roof would be 'made good' with new internal timbers, lead, underslate membrane and black, asbestos slate - this would match the existing situation.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Neither the site nor the immediate vicinity has been the subject of applications considered to be of material relevance to the current proposal. There have been a number of applications seeking
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site is located within an area zoned as 'Mixed Use' in the Area Plan for the South. The adjacent zoning to the east is 'Castle'. Although Castle Rushen is mentioned on several occasions in both supporting text and policy wording, other than the phrase "Castle Rushen is of obvious international significance", nothing within the Plan could be said to directly relate to the application under consideration.
4.2 As such, the key policies are Environment Policy 35 and parts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Castletown Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 26.04.2016. Although Highway Services of the DoI appear to have responded (on the same date), their response does not appear to contain any actual wording. In any case, it is reasonable to assume that the proposal has no highway implications.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00405/B
Page 2 of 3
6.1 The sole issue in this case from a Planning point of view is the impact the loss of the chimney would have on the character and appearance of the building and Conservation Area in which it sits. Due regard must also be had to the impact its removal would have on the setting of the Registered Building of Castle Rushen.
6.2 The chimney cannot be seen from Malew Street and therefore the impact of its loss will, from here, be neutral.
6.3 From the western part of the grounds of Castle Rushen, as well as presumably from some of its windows and walls, the chimney is visible. It is one of many stacks visible from here, but is not amongst the more robust - such as those found in the gables of a number of the buildings backing onto the Castle. It is narrow and in this sense unusual. Given the variety in building form, mass, finish and positions, also in terms of the varied shapes and sizes of the associated outriggers and roofing materials, along with the variety in chimney sizes and styles, there is no doubt that the chimney the subject of the application contributes to this pleasingly 'jumbled' character presented by the rear of Malew Street.
6.4 However, the test in this case is whether or not its removal would 'preserve' or 'enhance' this character and appearance, as per the wording of EP35. In this case, while the chimney is unusual, it is one of, if not the, least auspicious in the small vista achievable from the western part of Castle Rushen's grounds. Its concrete finish is not traditional, and it does not have historically interesting details (the flaunchings, necking, cap, oversailing courses and the pot itself are all fairly utilitarian) that would identify it as being especially worthy of retention in its own right, nor in terms of the contribution it makes to the wider area. The varied character of the area would continue to exist without the chimney's presence.
6.5 It is noted that a similar chimney (in terms of mass and scale) further along Malew Street is rather more prominent in the side elevation of an outrigger and this could be more difficult to remove without causing harm to the appearance of the area - this chimney breaks the skyline from many angles and much of its value is in providing variation to the side elevation and roofline. The chimney the subject of the application, though, only very briefly breaks the roofline but largely in association with the other, more robust and traditional chimney stacks against which it sits. There is therefore also the argument that removing it would enable easier observation of the more traditional chimneys nearby.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 In some ways the loss of the chimney is unfortunate. It does contribute to the character of the townscape here. However, it is not alone in doing so and nor is it a central feature of that character. It is concluded that its removal will allow easier views of the more traditional and historically interesting features of the area and in this sense represents an enhancement of the character. This is concluded to be the most significant point in favour of its removal and can be positively balanced against the negative impacts arising from the loss of what is a contributing, though minimally so, characteristic of the rear of Malew Street.
7.2 Consequently, the application is concluded to comply with GP2 and EP35 and accordingly is recommended for approval.
7.3 A condition setting out how the roof is to be made good, as described in paragraph 2.2, is appropriate and can be written to replicate the terms of the quote for those works included within the submitted details of the application.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00405/B
Page 3 of 3
o 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; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.05.2016
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. The hole created in the roof caused by the removal of the chimney stack hereby approved shall be made good with tiles to match those on the existing roof unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of this building, the Conservation Area in which is sits, and the setting of the Registered Building from which it is visible.
The development hereby approved relates to the Location Plan, the two photograph sheets and the 'Roof and stack work' quote dated 28th March 2016, all date-stamped as having been receive 7th April 2016.
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 : Permitted
Date: 24.05.2016
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal