Our Ref: 22-00017-B et al/ACCJ 14^{\text {th }} February, 2022

Ms E J Callow Secretary to the Planning Committee Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF

Dear Ms Callow

PA No 22/00017/B: Mr Gary and Mrs Veronica Lark - Alterations and erection of extensions. and PA No 22/00018/CON: Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 22/00017/B. and PA No 22/00019/B: Removal of two chimney stacks. and PA No 22/00022/CON: Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 22/00019/B, 39 Douglas Street Peel.

Disclosure: these applications have been submitted on behalf of a member of MNH staff. No discussion of the applications has taken place between the staff-member and the officer making this submission.

I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.

The above applications relate to a property which was the subject of a wider archaeological and architectural study by the University of Liverpool in 1985, later published in 1992 as Peel Town: an archaeological and architectural assessment by J Lewis, PJ Davey, CM Morris and RA Philpott, through the Department of Local Government & the Environment, the University of Liverpool and MNH.

The original interpretation proposed that the main pile of the house faced Douglas Street and that two domestic extensions had been constructed perpendicular to the rear, and that subsequently a further agricultural addition had been made on the gable end of the second of these (the more southerly). The building is shown in something like its current form admittedly at small scale - on the Corris plan of Peel published in 1784, and assessed as having been a small farm complex.

In our view however both the 1985 survey and that accompanying these applications show inconsistent wall thicknesses and altered openings suggestive of a rather more complex history of adaptation and development than that summarised above. Much of this is located at the rear of the property, away from public view, but is also hinted at by the variety of window openings in the front façade where a range of widths and vertical misalignment is readily apparent.

We consider that the alterations proposed are commendably minimalist in their aim of creating a more modern living space whilst largely preserving the exterior of the structure and in particular the character of those elevations visible from the public highway. The front façade remains unchanged, and the stacks that are proposed for removal are not visible from ground level in the street.

We further note that the demolition of the two stacks towards the rear of the property also proposes the removal of both chimney breasts down to ground level. Both stacks show evidence of having been raised during their lifetime, probably to improve the 'draw' of the flues they contain. As these are now deemed wholly redundant, it makes practical sense to maximise internal space by cutting back the supporting masonry.

The creation of new internal openings and the removal of the chimney breasts will require quite substantial interventions internally, though the effects will not be apparent to the passing public. In weighing up the overall effect of the proposals we therefore find them acceptable, but would request that the opportunity to make a photographic record of the affected areas of the building be provided, and a copy of the resulting record deposited with MNH. We leave it to the Department to decide whether this matter need be the subject of a condition.

We trust that the above comments are of help to the Committee in making its decision. Yours sincerely

Andrew Johnson BA MSc FSA <br> Inspector of Ancient Monuments

cc Mr Ross Brazier, Principal Registered Buildings Officer, DEFA