Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00128/LAW Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00128/LAW Applicant : Sure (IOM) Ltd Proposal : Certificate of Proposed Development for the installation of telecommunication equipment and wire mesh in church tower Site Address : Trinity Methodist Church Rosemount Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3EY
Principal Planner: Miss Abigail Morgan Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Certificate of Lawful Use/Devel Approved Date of Recommendation: 26.10.2022 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Taken in the overall round, the proposal to site the telecommunications equipment and associated features, as set out in the information dated 26 July 2022, in the tower of Trinity Church Spire would not be considered development for which planning approval would be required as, the works fall within the definition of operations not considered to involve development as set down in Section 6 Paragraph 3 (a) 9ii) in that it does not materially affect the external appearance of the building.
Plans/Drawings/Information; As received 26/7/2022
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
As a CLU this is not required to be assessed. __
Officer’s Report
INTRODUCTION
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00128/LAW Page 2 of 4
1.1 Under s24 (b) of the 1999 Act, if any person wishes to ascertain whether any proposed use of buildings or other land would be lawful, they may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use in question. The onus is on the appellant to prove their case, using evidence that is precise and unambiguous.
1.2 Here the applicant proposes to site a telecoms equipment and wire mesh inside the spire of Trinity Methodist Church. The case being made is that the works would not constitute development under s6 (3)(a)(ii) as it is an 'other alteration' which does not materially affect the external appearance of the building.
1.3 An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is determined on the basis of fact. Unlike an application for planning approval, it is not concerned with land-use planning considerations or the impacts of the development upon the public realm. 2. APPLICATION SITE
2.1 The site is Trinity Church Spire on the corner of Windsor Road, Bucks Road, Rosemount and Kensington Road.
3.1 To install internal mesh sheeting inside the spire windows, steel bracing to support the telecommunications equipment. The proposed equipment consists of antenna in the spire windows, associated radio units, controller and power units. These are all to be mounted/located in the spire itself. Further details can be found in the submitted information.
4.1 None considered relevant to this application.
5.1 None received at the time of writing this report.
6.1 The following information has been submitted (in no order);
o Supporting Statement o Plan Register o Example of Mesh o Location Plan o Structural Details for Telecommunications Equipment o Application Form
The supporting statement includes the following statement [my summary]; o No external changes are being proposed o Mesh is inside the existing windows o Mesh will obscure the view of proposed internal works o Equipment to be black to blend with dark background
7.1 The carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building or works which affect only the interior of buildings, or which do not materially affect the external appearance of buildings do not constitute development.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00128/LAW Page 3 of 4
7.2 For a material effect on external appearance to have occurred there should be a substantial or significant physical change.
7.3 The leading court case on this subject is Burroughs Day v Bristol City Council [1996] and is often cited in considerations of material effect on external appearance. The court held that changes in external appearance had to be judged in relation to the building as a whole in order to determine the materiality of their effect. Here it was also stated that any change to external appearance must be visible from a number of normal vantage points and that visibility from the air or a single building would not suffice. Thus part of the test for "material effect" must depend on the degree of visibility.
7.4 In the Burroughs Day case, the works involved the creation of lift shaft housing and alterations to roof and window. The court considered that while these works affected the appearance of the building, the building was not "materially" affected thereby. The works were not visible from any street or from any window, except from the top two floors of an office building or from the air. There was no development.
7.5 In summary, the judgment listed factors to be taken into account in deciding that alterations to a building were material: it must be seen from outside the building; roof alterations must be seen from the ground or from within a neighbouring building; the degree of visibility must be material and materiality must take into account the nature of the building and be judged in relation to the building as a whole.
7.6 To assess whether the external appearance of a building is materially affected by works, and in the application of the Burroughs Day tests, the correct approach must be a careful comparison of the appearance of the building in question before and after the work. This will include an examination of the appropriateness of materials type, colour and finish, and whether the materials are in keeping or contrast to surrounding materials and those of the whole building.
7.7 In this situation the application of the above is considered to be;
o Visible from a number of normal vantage points from outside the building (i.e. from ground or within other neighbouring buildings/a number of normal vantage points) o Judged in relation to the building as a whole o The approach taken is a careful comparison of the appearance of the building in question before and after the works o The appropriateness of the materials (type, colour and finished) - whether in keeping or in contrast to surrounding materials and those of the whole building
7.8 The church tower is an important focal point of the building (however the building is large and the tower is only one element, albeit it a prominent one). The building is located in a prominent position, meaning the tower and its windows are clearly visible from public view from street level.
7.9 From close to the building given the angle a pedestrian could not really see through the windows (as the angle means you are looking up through the window to the underneath of the roof). From further away sky is visible from a pedestrian view predominately coming from the south along Windsor Terrace, from Rosemount, Kensington and Woodbourne Road the views if any are oblique and only for a short period of time, it is considered that this view would be impacted on to some extent.
7.10 That being said in terms of the overall building the introduction of the mesh and the dark colour proposed taking into account the before and after appearance of the building and the proposed materials are considered to be in keeping with surrounding materials.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00128/LAW Page 4 of 4
7.11 While these works affect the appearance of the building with some fleeting views from the ground, overall the building is not considered to be "materially" affected thereby.
8.1 For the above reason and taken in the overall round, the proposal to site the telecommunications equipment and associated features, as set out in the information dated 26 July 2022, in the tower of Trinity Church Spire would not be considered development for which planning approval would be required as. The works fall within the definition of operations not considered to involve development as set down in Section 6 Paragraph 3 (a) 9ii) in that it does not materially affect the external appearance of the building.
9.0 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS
9.1 As the application is for a CLU this is not required to be assessed. There is no right to appeal against this decision. __
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 : Certificate of Lawful Use/Devel Approved
Date: 27.10.2022
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal