Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00611/CON Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00611/CON Applicant : Bishop Barrow Charity Proposal : Registered Building consent for the installation of a platform lift between existing Stair Lobby and Theatre (Registered Building Nos. 185) Site Address : Kings Court Theatre King Williams College Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1TP
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 30.06.2016 Site Visit : 30.06.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The site is the curtilage of King William's College, a private educational establishment situated on the north eastern side of Castletown. The site is 38 acres (15 ha) in area and contains sports pitches, residential accommodation associated with the school, a chapel, a theatre, educational and associated administrative facilities and other sports facilities including a swimming pool and changing rooms which are situated at the western edge of the main building group.
1.2 The buildings on site are a mixture of styles, heights and finishes with some very old buildings that are Registered. The buildings on site are clearly visible as landmarks from both the A5 Castletown Road and the A12 Derbyhaven Road.
1.3 The site of the proposed works, meanwhile, is within the confines of the Kings Court Theatre on the first floor and the Library on the floor below within the northwestern part of the main college building.
1.4 The building itself was Registered in 2001 for reasons of its special architectural and historic interest; the Registration document itself includes no further description or explanation.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Registered Building Consent is sought for the installation of a lift shaft connecting the ground floor with the Kings Court Theatre above. The ground floor access would be provided from the main stair lobby and in a position where there was once clearly previously an access but which has historically been blocked up with stud walling. Within the Library itself, a bookshelf obscured much of the position of the proposed shaft and, while it is noted that these could be removed at any time, there is also a larger stud wall 'office' area alongside this position, in addition to some supporting pillars as well.
2.2 The lift shaft itself would be formed of dense concrete walling. The agent to the application has confirmed that door to the lift would be formed of steel and finished in one of a number of different colours. It was suggested that RAL-5012 Blue might be a good way forward inasmuch as
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00611/CON Page 2 of 6
this would be similar to the Disabled Badge colour and would also match the wood panelling on the walls adjacent. A condition could be attached to this end.
2.3 On the floor above, the access to the lift would be provided within an existing store cupboard. The existing door, of gloss finish but benefiting from no detailing whatsoever, would be removed. These works would require the removal of some timber panelling within the store cupboard. Behind this is a small control room, which would be accessed from underneath the seating in the Theatre itself. On the ground floor, the lift would be dug slightly into the concrete base.
2.4 Also detailed on the application form and mentioned on the submitted drawings and supporting photographs is a chair store in the main Theatre. This, however, did not form a part of the application's description and nor have any drawings or the store walls or doors for it been provided. The applicants are content for this to form part of a separate application and to provide further details in its respect when these become known and the need for the store becomes more urgent. In view of the time limits imposed by funding sources for the lift, however, the applicants have sought a determination on this element.
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.1 The site is zoned as College on the Area Plan for the South. While there are no policies in the Plan specifically related to the College itself, there are a number of policies within the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 that are relevant.
3.2 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must:
(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) Protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) Not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."
3.3 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."
3.4 Environment Policy 34 states: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred."
3.5 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 RB/3: General Criteria Applied in Considering Registered Building Applications:
"The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:
o 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; o 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; o 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
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00611/CON Page 3 of 6
it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings)."
3.6 RB/3: General criteria applied in considering registered building applications: "The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:
"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)."
3.7 RB/5: Alterations and Extensions:
"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."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The site has, unsurprisingly, been the subject of a number of applications seeking both planning approval and Registered Building Consent. However, while each of these relate to various medium- and small-scale alterations, both internally and externally, none of these is considered to be specifically material to the assessment of the current application as none relate specifically to the area in which the works are now proposed.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Castletown Commissioners offered no objection on 11.07.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00611/CON Page 4 of 6
6.1 No justification statement has accompanied the application, but a site meeting with a number of the representatives of the School was held and this was helpful. In essence, what is proposed is the removal of a length of stud wall that has previously been inserted to block off an historic internal access, the removal of a door of apparently limited historic or aesthetic value, the removal of some wood panelling, and the installation of a lift shaft. The extent to which the elements proposed for removal, and the lift shaft and door proposed for insertion, affect the special character of the building will determine the acceptability of the proposals overall.
6.2 In the first instance, it is considered that the removal of the stud wall and nondescript door would be beneficial in this respect. Neither of these is original to the building and neither, moreover, offer any particular merit in their own right. They detract from the character of the building (the stud wall perhaps less so given the use of judicious detailing, but equally it is somewhat prominent in the lobby and clearly reflects and historic addition).
6.3 The loss of some of the timber panelling is somewhat unfortunate, but it must be remembered that there remains a significant amount and in much more publicly accessible and visible locations. (It is also to be remembered that the Theatre becomes publicly accessible for performances.) The panelling also is complete in those areas where it is visible, and although the loss of this historic feature is unfortunate it could not be considered to adversely affect the character of the building overall to a degree quite sufficient to object to the proposal. It is also noted that the amount of panelling to be removed would be kept to an absolute minimum and that which was removed would be retained on site for use elsewhere in future.
6.4 The lift shaft itself is evidently needed - there is no alternative access for people with mobility issues to the Theatre and to address this is welcome in principle. Moreover, it is considered that the proposed location of the lift shaft is logical. It is kept out of particularly sensitive visual positions and would not result in the loss of important useable space - in many ways, it is quite fortunate that an underused part of the library sits below an underused store cupboard, but more importantly it is welcome that the agent has exploited this in the manner proposed.
6.5 It remains the case that some important details have not been submitted, and this makes assessment of the application more difficult. The above conclusions have been reached having regard purely to the visual impact and without an understanding of the historic use or wider value of the fixtures and fittings to the building as a whole. There is limited information in respect of the finish or appearance of the walls or doors proposed.
6.6 The agent has confirmed that the lift door would be formed of steel and has, as noted, been proposed to be finished in a specific blue. While it would be preferable to have a door of more attractive or historically appropriate / accurate finish, material or appearance - and perhaps one could be affixed to the steel door of the lift itself to this end - the door itself is fairly well-obscured and, in any case, the need for the lift shaft itself is considered to outweigh this concern. A condition requiring the door to be of the blue indicated is recommended in this case, since other colours would be less appropriate.
6.7 The lack of information on the other matters is not considered to be fatal to the application. Of most concern in this respect is the lack of information submitted relating to the door proposed for the lift shaft control room. The cutting through of the existing and historically added stud wall is not problematic, but it would have been helpful if at the very least a catalogue had been provided for the door. However, the door itself is well outside of public views, being located beneath seating, and will not be seen. This lack of information is therefore considered acceptable in this case, and seeking further details via condition is accordingly considered unnecessary.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Despite the conclusion that the application has a number of shortcomings, it is considered that the important issues have been addressed and sufficient detail provided in their respect. It is
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00611/CON Page 5 of 6
further concluded that the details of the proposal are acceptable where those details have been provided, and that further details are not required in those areas where the details are lacking for the reasons given.
7.2 One condition requiring that the lift shaft door be RAL-5012 in colour is recommended to be attached.
7.3 A further note recording that no Consent exists for the installation of the chair store is also recommended. No assessment of this element of the scheme has been made in the absence of sufficient detail to so do, but this condition would not prejudice an application seeking Consent for the installation of such a store.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following 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; c) Manx National Heritage, and d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.07.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent.
Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents.
C 2. The lift door shall be coloured RAL-5012 blue and retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: the colour is appropriate for the use of the lift itself and also in the context of grey-painted detailing in the lobby. Other colours would require fresh assessment - and a stainless steel finish would be inappropriate for this historic interior.
N 1. Notwithstanding the Registered Building Consent hereby issued, no Registered Building Consent exists for the installation of the chair store and none is hereby granted for this.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00611/CON Page 6 of 6
Reason: no assessment of this element of the scheme has been made in the absence of sufficient detail to so do, but this condition does not prejudice an application seeking Consent for the installation of such a store.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 01, 50 and 100, all date-stamped as having been received 26th May 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: 14.07.2016
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