Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00351/CON Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00351/CON Applicant : BBG Limited Proposal : Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 21/00336/B Site Address : Shore Hotel Old Laxey Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DA
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.09.2021 __
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded that on balance the demolition works are likely to have any overall negligible impact on the general street scene and the wider Conservation Area and that their loss in making way for new development would contribute to the vitality of Laxey. The application is therefore considered to comply with the test of Environment Policies 35 and 39, Strategic Policy 4 and Community Policy 4 and the principles set out in PPS 1/01.
Plans/Drawings/Information; 001, 010, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 300, 301, WGS dwg 01 and Design Statement all date received 30/03/2021, and bat survey received 18/08/2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 4(2): o Tebekwe Mount, Old Laxey Hill as they do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020).
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00351/CON Page 2 of 7
It is recommended that the following organisation 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 4(2): o Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they do not own or occupy 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 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 Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the extents of The Shore Hotel, Laxey a two storey property situated at the bottom of Old Laxey Hill and central to Old Laxey. The public house and its car park sit on the south side of the river nearest the bridge crossing over to Glen Road and Minorca Hill. Running parallel to the river and through the car park is a public footpath linking to the glen running along the river.
1.2 The building comprises two main elements, the public house which fronts onto Old Laxey Hill which is a traditional two storey building with a three bay window arrangement around a central front door, it has two grand stacks on each gable end and two later addition peaked dormers across the front roof slope, at the rear are a number of cat slide extensions, a small porch all linking to a converted and extended 'L' shaped stone barn which has a number of smaller flat roof additions and intertwined small yard area. Most of the roofs are pitched or cat slide and finished in slate with a general traditional feel with exception to those smaller flat roof areas.
1.3 The central ridge of the main structure is around 10.5m tall with its eaves measuring 7.5m tall. The central ridge of the rear barn is 6.5m with eaves 4.7m tall.
1.4 There is an existing boundary wall between the site and immediate neighbours 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages this boundary wall ranges between 2.7m - 4.4m tall.
1.5 Car parking runs between the building and the river and wrapping around the rear side of the site. There is a small strip of grass nearest the river with a post and wire style fence defining the river edge, there are benches here providing outdoor seating for the business.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Registered Building Consent is sought for the demolition works relating to PA 21/00336/B for the demolition of existing structures and catslide extensions to the rear of The Shore and their replacement with one consolidated two storey linked extension.
Replacement Extension Development 2.2 The proposal is to measure approx. 24m long and 8.6m wide for the two storey part and which is to be set towards the back of the site and away from the northern gable of the main building, along the elevation edge nearest the river there is to be a further 6.3m wide timber framed flat roof extension providing additional ground floor space for both internal restaurant area and an outside covered seating area.
2.3 To the central ridge the extension is to be 9m tall and 6m tall to eaves, the elevation facing the river is to include three peaked dormers above the timber framed flat roof extension and large floor to ceiling glazing is to be installed to the proposed restaurant area.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00351/CON Page 3 of 7
2.4 Across the rear are a number of small first floor windows and service doors at ground floor, nearest the rear boundary are two flat roof extensions matching the height of the existing boundary walls separating the site from its nearest two neighbours 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages.
2.5 The proposal includes a new link extension at the rear which will replace the existing cat slide with a taller pitched roof link accommodating the central circulation core stairwell and lift.
2.6 Within the site, it is proposed that the parking is laid out and extended wrapping around the side and rear providing in total 32 spaces.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a number of previous applications at the site throughout the late 80's, 90's and early 2000's for alterations and modifications to the existing building including internal works, erection of fencing and installation of gas tanks, installation of dormers and roof over rear stairwell and bedroom and porch extensions and the conversion of the existing rear restaurant into a micro-brewery which is still in place today.
3.2 Two historic refusals at the site have been noted, one for a small extension to the rear of the existing pub between the main building and rear outbuildings 89/00239/B which was refused for being out of keeping with the existing building, changes to the scheme were later approved under a resubmission 89/01534/B. Later in 2002 an application was submitted for an extension to the existing rear outbuilding under 02/00401/B. This was issued a split decision at appeal, a porch and bin store were approved, however the extension to the outbuilding which projected towards the south rear boundary and behind the full width of the rear 1 and 2 Glen Roy Cottages was refused on grounds that its appearance would be inappropriate due to its length and absence of features, its proximity to Glen Roy Cottages would introduce overlooking and diminution of privacy from upper windows and due to lack of detail for existing trees there was concern they could be adversely affected from the extension.
4.0 PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Mixed Use" on The Area Plan for the East (TAPE), within the Laxey Conservation Area and recognised on recent flood maps as being at high risk of both tidal and river flooding. Given the nature of the application being for RB consent works in relation to 21/00336/B it is most relevant to focus on those policies which relate specifically to demolition works within a Conservation Area and Heritage policies referenced in PPS 1/01.
4.2 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; (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
4.3 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." 4.3 Paragraph 7.32.2 Demolition in Conservation Areas - "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 the 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;
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00351/CON Page 4 of 7
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."
4.4 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.
Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
4.5 POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION "There will be a general presumption against demolition. ... 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 a 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:
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 a 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."
4.6 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 is 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00351/CON Page 5 of 7
in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
5.0 REPRESENTATION Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Garff Commissioners - no comments received in this application but outlined 'no objection' to the concurrent 21/00336/B application stating on 24/05/2021 that the size and scope of replacement rear extension considered to be acceptable, car parking was raised as issue given limited public car parking in the area but it was noted the proposal includes additional parking at the site and considered adequate for the proposal. Overall consensus was that the proposal was likely to have a positive benefit to the Old Laxey area.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to conditions (20/04/2021 and 23/08/2021) - Car parking spaces are to increase by 11 spaces to a total of 32 for site but this is still under the calculated 36 spaces as indicated in the car parking assessment in the submitted Design Statement. The shortfall in this case however is deemed to be acceptable, given that some customers would be undertaking linked trips, that there is some limited amount of on-street nearby and off-street parking spaces in the locale which includes parking for larger vehicles, such as coaches. The proposed car parking spaces are of adequate size and there is sufficient manoeuvring space, including for deliveries and collections. Waste bin collection is to be retained with a new bin store in reasonable proximity for carry and wheeling distances. It is should be noted that existing visibility splays on exit are shorter than would be expected for a 20mph speed limit at 2.4 x25m due to features in the street scene, but that overall the proposal does not give rise to significant highway safety or network efficiency issues. Conditions for the parking and turning layout to accord with the site plan, Drawing No: 010. Details of bicycle parking to show the form and layout should also be provided along with indication of electric charging points.
Interest Groups 5.3 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (IOMNHAS) - objection (11/05/2021) - The proposal includes the demolition of a pre-1833 stone building, a former brewery, which features in an iconic painting of Laxey of that period (a photo attached to their comments). This building is still a feature of the site from the riverside and Glen Road albeit obscured behind the front of the Shore Hotel. Strategic Plan Environment Policies 34, 35 and 39 and PPS 1 Conservation Area policies CA/1, CA/2 and CA/3 include a presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, they state a preference for use of traditional materials, and only enable development which would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and thus the Society would expect that any redevelopment on the site would seek to justify demolition of the old stone buildings, something which has previously been refused, and seek to ensure that any replacement demonstrated how it would reflect the characteristics of the Conservation Area and old buildings it seeks to replace. The proposed development does not include any use of Manx stone, a feature both of the old brewery building and the river bank walls which it faces; it includes substantial wooden uprights to support a large expanse of flat roof and wide half-dormer windows which is not a characteristic of the area. While the Society acknowledges that the plethora of alterations between the front building and the stone brewery building do not add to the character of the Conservation Area, the design of the proposed replacement appears overly dominant and heavy. If consent is given for the demolition of the old stone brewery then the Society believes at the very minimum there should be Manx stone traditionally laid on the gable wall of the extension and the low walls of the covered seating area facing the river. The Society would prefer the use of thinner metal uprights to support any flat roof.
Neighbouring Properties 5.4 The owners of Tebekwe Mount, Old Laxey Hill - Objection (26/04/2021) - they raise concerns in respect of the height of the proposed structure which will obliterate the views from the rear of their property.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00351/CON Page 6 of 7
5.5 Two letters were sent to the owners/occupiers of nearest dwellings 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages however no responses were received as of 04/08/2021.
5.6 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer - 07/05/2021 provided comments in respect of bats and requesting the need for a bat survey. A bat survey was provided by the agent dated 16/08/2021 and circulated. Updated comments were received from DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer dated 20/08/2021 in which they concluded that "an adequate level of survey has been undertaken and adheres to best practice guidelines. The findings were that the development could proceed without impacting on legally protected bats. The report identified the vegetated bank adjacent to the development site as a good feeding area for bats and made recommendations about the inclusion of bat roosting facilities in the development design which we fully support", they comments also reiterated the potential for nesting birds and the separate obligations required for their protection under the Wildlife Act 1990 and that suitable checks should be made.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key consideration here is whether the demolition works of the existing building within the conservation area are acceptable. Policies mentioned in section 4 set out a presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, stating a preference for the use or re-use of traditional materials in any extension or modification, and only allowing development which would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area in which it sits.
6.2 In the specific case it is recognised that there are remaining structures to the rear of the pub that are knowingly old and which feature across historic photographs of the developing Laxey, including the main pub building which is a prominent structure in most documents dating 1890 onwards. In its present state, it is clear that those older structures have, over considerable time, been subject to ad hoc alterations and extensions and have been subsumed amongst newer structures which cumulatively lower their standalone historic quality and present an overall staggered and somewhat dissonant appearance across the rear, and where the stone has been painted it gives a toneless and somewhat unappealing finish.
6.3 Unlike the main public house building which stands fairly majestically along the roadside and contributes to the Conservation Area both in terms of its architectural, social and historic interest, the various structures to its rear in comparison currently exist with fairly little positive contribution to the overall quality of the current streetscene and Conservation Area status, and for this reason it's likely that their loss would have an overall negligible impact on the general character and appearance of the immediate area which would ultimately be retained through the main public house building, the soft edge along the riverside and the river setting itself leading to the harbourside and the traditional dwellings lining the small winding streets in the surrounding area.
6.4 The negligible impacts on the conservation area should not be the standalone reason for the loss of these existing rear structures, consideration must also be given to Strategic Policies and Community Policies that seek to support and encourage the development of existing brownfield or underused sites particularly those within existing settlements, and which makes efficient and best use of space, encourage growth of employment opportunities and which utilise existing infrastructure as is the case here in the heart of Old Laxey. As indicated in a letter of support and also noted during a site visit efforts have already been made by the current owners in seeking to revitalise the existing public house and the design statement supporting the application outlines the intentions now to expand to provide a new restaurant and further tourist accommodation in the centre of Laxey and it is considered that this would contribute to its vitality.
Habitats 6.5 The agent provided a bat report late on in the application process, this was circulated to Ecosystems Policy Officers and comments were sought. The report outlined that only un-rendered parts of the rear building offered an environment suitable for roosting, while no evidence of bats was found there had been some house sparrows nesting in some crevices. A bat emergence
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00351/CON Page 7 of 7
survey demonstrated that there were a number of bats foraging for night-flying insects in the area. The rich supply of such insects due to the riverside location and proximity to trees. From the behaviour of some of the foraging bats it also appears that if roosting opportunities were to be provided it is likely that they would be used. This could be treated as an opportunity to enhance the site for wildlife. While there was one bat showing potential for roosting in the building given that it disappeared from the south side survey, it was concluded on the northern survey reading that it flew over the ridge rather than into the building. Updated comments from Ecosystems Policy Officer did not indicated any concerns and they stated that the level of survey was acceptable, noting that bat roosting facilities would be supported within the design and highlighting the separate obligations under the Wildlife Act in respect of protected species including bats and birds.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that on balance the demolition works are likely to have any overall negligible impact on the general street scene and the wider Conservation Area and that their loss in making way for new development would contribute to the vitality of Laxey. The application is therefore considered to comply with the test of Environment Policies 35 and 39, Strategic Policy 4 and Community Policy 4 and the principles set out in PPS 1/01.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 (As Amended), the following are automatically interested persons: o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o Manx National Heritage, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The Decision maker must determine 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 the Head of Development Management 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 : Permitted Date : 07.09.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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