Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00229/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00229/B Applicant : Heron And Brearley Ltd Proposal : Demolition of building (in association with Registered Building Application 20/00230/CON) Site Address : Britannia Hotel Waterloo Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1DR
Technical Officer: Mr Thomas Sinden Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.01.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal fails to meet the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999; Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan 2016; and policies CA/6 and RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. The proposal fails to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Conservation Area, nor would it preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. It is therefore judged to be unacceptable.
R 2. In the absence of any proposals for the future use of the site, the case for re-designation of the land use cannot be accurately assessed. The proposal is therefore contrary to Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons 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 Isle of Man History and Antiquarian Society The Isle of Man Victorian Society The resident of 2 Glen View, Laxey
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00229/B Page 2 of 9
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.
The DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer
as their representation does not relate to the relevant issues set out within paragraph C3 of the policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is the Britannia Hotel, a three storey building (with single storey elements) bordered on three sides by Waterloo Road, Peel Street and Chapel Lane respectively. On its fourth, north-eastern side, the building shares a party wall with the Bourne Concourse building. The site is within the Ramsey Conservation Area.
1.2 The building generally has four sections. The main three storey section, facing Waterloo Road, was built in 1847 by Dr John William Clucas as a dwelling, later becoming the Waterloo Hotel and then the Britannia. The third storey of this section is contained substantially within the roof space. On Chapel Lane, the property includes a two storey section that may pre-date the former doctor's house and is vernacular in design. A single storey side extension to the main building, fronting on to Peel Street, was later added, and most recently the internal courtyard has been infilled with a single storey WC block.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application proposes to demolish the Britannia Hotel, retaining the party wall with the Bourne Concourse building as well as parts of the abutting internal and external walls to provide a buttress for the party wall. The remaining site will be levelled and covered with hardcore stone.
2.2 The application also seeks to change the site's status from public house to mixed use.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY.
3.1 The site is noted as a public house, but within the town centre area of mixed use on the Ramsey Local Plan 1998.
3.2 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions (3) In considering - (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant 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.
S18 Designation of conservation areas (4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.
S19 Control of Demolition in Conservation Areas
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00229/B Page 3 of 9
(3) A building to which this section applies may not be demolished without the consent of the Department; and accordingly sections 15 and 16 apply to such a building as they apply to a registered building, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations.
3.3 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
Environment Policy 35: 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.
Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas 7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.
3.3 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00229/B Page 4 of 9
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 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.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Application 06/02098/B permitted works to reduce existing chimney and cap with a power assisted extraction fan, while application 08/00131/B permitted the erection of a smoking shelter and re-positioning of signage.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00229/B Page 5 of 9
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have stated that there is no highways interest in the application (19.03.2020; 01.04.2020; 18.12.2020).
5.2 The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society have submitted comments that include notes and information on the history of the Waterloo Road area of Ramsey. Within these comments, the Society states they believe the Britannia is a landmark, feature building. They go on to note that extant photographs they have included show that the building with its triple peak frontage, bay windows and balcony all appear to be original features; as such they are uniquely, in this locality, representative of the earliest period in which such features were utilised. The Society objects to the application (17.04.2020).
5.3 Ramsey Town Commissioners have stated that they are very disappointed that the process has allowed the property to get in to the condition where it now has to be demolished. They further state that they do not like the recommended finish of the plot and would prefer to see it grassed, especially if the likelihood is that it could be in that condition for some time. Following an amendment to the application description on 17th March 2020, the Commissioners have stated they have no objection to this amendment (20.04.2020).
5.4 Manx National Heritage have submitted comments at length regarding the Ecology, Environment, Architecture and History of the property. In summary, Manx National Heritage recommend that permission is refused, on the basis that the Committee has insufficient evidence on which to take an informed and therefore safe decision, and that given the lack of evidence to the contrary, a case for demolition - of a landmark building in a conservation area - has not been made. Manx National Heritage also strongly express their view that the building appears capable of repurposing and regenerating. (30.04.2020). Manx National Heritage's Ecologist and Environmental Planner also submitted a brief comment on 25.04.2020 that was then summarised within the main comment received on 30.04.2020. Following the submission of additional information circulated on 8th December 2020, which included a structural inspection report, Manx National Heritage have not made further comment.
5.5 The DEFA Principal Registered Buildings Officer has made comment stating that they feel the application fails to make a clear and convincing justification as to why the building should be demolished. On this basis the Officer objects to the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and where no clear justification has been made for such a loss. They recommend the application is refused on legislative and policy grounds (21.05.2020). Following submission of additional information circulated on 8th December 2020, the Officer has verbally confirmed that their original comment still represents their view on the application.
5.6 The Isle of Man Victorian Society have submitted comments regarding the proposals and the submissions in relation to the application. Within this, the Society states that they have failed to find any convincing evidence of the desperate need to demolish the building on account of structural instability. They further note that the property is within a Conservation Area and compliments the former Dumbell's / Parr's/ Nat West bank designed by Oswald Pennington and the former Waterloo Road Methodist Church at that road junction. They state that there is a presumption against demolition and believe no case has been made for it. (17.06.2020).
5.7 The resident of 2 Glen View, Laxey, has submitted a comment objecting to the application, and including historic information regarding the building. They also state that demolition in any Conservation Area should only be considered if there are substantive plans for replacement. They feel that as such, the proposed demolition is contrary to the policies contained PPS 1/01 Conservation of the Historic Environment (30.07.2020).
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00229/B Page 6 of 9
5.8 The DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer has made comment requesting that a preliminary assessment for bats be undertaken on the property by a suitably qualified ecologist. They further state that the presence of bats will not prevent the property from being altered or demolished but provision must be shown for their ongoing protection (23.12.2020).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The pertinent issue to be assessed by this application is the impact of the proposed demolition on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.2 Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, concerning the control of demolition in Conservation Areas, states that sections 15 and 16 apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building. Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to 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. The submissions made in respect of this application by Manx National Heritage, The Isle of Man Victorian Society, The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian, and the resident of 2 Glen View, Laxey, provide consistent information that outline the history and various features of the building's design. It is clear from this information that preserving the building is desirable in respect of its special architectural and historic interest.
6.3 Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan states that proposals for development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Conservation Areas. In addition to this, Environment Policy 35 states that within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. Also, Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. It is judged important to note that the property in question is the last one included within the Conservation Area in this direction, those on the other side of Waterloo Road not being included. It is reasonable to assume that when the boundaries of the Conservation Area were being drawn, the Britannia Hotel was purposefully included within the Area, and was judged to contribute to the character or appearance. Clearly, the demolition of the building would therefore fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Conservation Area as required by Strategic Policy 4; nor would it preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area as required by Environment Policy 35 and Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.
6.4 Policy RB/6 in Planning Policy Statement 1/01, and the preamble to Environment Policy 39 in the Strategic Plan, state that whilst there is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, consideration will also be given to four factors in respect of a building. o Firstly, the condition of the building. A structural report has been submitted with the application. Whilst this notes various issues, including structural movement, the report does not state that the building is in any imminent danger of collapse, and does include suggestions for remedial works to ensure its future structural integrity. It is not judged that the building's condition is sufficient reason to justify demolition. o Secondly, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance. Additional structural information was circulated on 8th December 2020, which included a breakdown and cost estimate for the repair works to the building. In the additional statement provided by the applicant's agent, also circulated on 8th December 2020, it is argued that the cost of repairing the building is irrelevant if a future use for the building cannot be identified, and that the current use of the building is no longer considered viable. Whilst it may be the case that the current owner considers the existing use no longer viable, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that other owners would not consider the current use viable. Whilst it is noted that the property has been on the market for some time, and that initial expressions of interest were withdrawn once closer inspection of the structure was undertaken, this is not
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00229/B Page 7 of 9
judged to be a sufficient case for demolition. The estimate cost of the repair works is substantially less than the asking price stated in the application supporting information, and therefore it is judged that the cost of remedial works does not provide justification for demolition in this instance. o Thirdly, the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use. The statement by the applicant's agent that was circulated on 8th December 2020 states that dry rot and a leak under the floor have been dealt with, but that no structural work has been carried out. Beyond this, there is no further information in respect of efforts to retain the building in use. In the initial Planning and Design Statement submitted with the application, it is noted that the public house closed in January 2014 due to lack of trade. Given no further information in respect of efforts to retain the building in use, it is judged that this cannot be considered as justification for demolition. o Finally, the merits of alternative proposals for the site. The additional statement provided by the applicant's agent and circulated on 8th December 2020 contains an assessment of the viability of alternative proposals for the site. Office, retail, residential house and residential flats have been assessed as alternatives. The conclusion reached in the statement is that conversion to residential flats is the most viable option, but that the possible financial gain set against the estimated costs for conversion make the idea inviable. Whilst the assessment exercise undertaken appears to be based upon reasonable assumptions regarding the economic market in Ramsey and the likely construction costs that any project would require, this assessment does not include any economic assessment of the current use. Without any case being set out for the property continuing in its current use, an assessment of alternative uses cannot be sole justification for demolition.
6.5 The application also proposes to change the site's status from public house to mixed use. The statement accompanying the application assesses the site against the tests of Community Policy 4, which states that development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. Whilst the case has been made that the use is no longer commercially viable for the applicant, a case has not been made that the property cannot be made commercially viable in the future (whether by the current owners or by future owners). Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the proposal meets the tests of Community Policy 4. It can be stated that as the site currently sits within an area noted as Town Centre Mixed Use on the Ramsey Local Plan 1998, the proposed mixed use designation may be appropriate. However, without any detailed (or in principle) proposals for the site's future use beyond the creation of a vacant site, the merits of an alternative use cannot accurately be assessed.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 It is judged that the proposal fails to meet the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999; Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan 2016; and policies CA/6 and RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. The proposal fails to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Conservation Area, nor would it preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00229/B Page 8 of 9
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 above who should be given Interested Person Status
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.01.2021
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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 9 ====
20/00229/B Page 9 of 9
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal