Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00527/CON Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00527/CON Applicant : Care Developments Ltd Proposal : Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 23/00526/B Site Address : Former Eastfield Mansion House Eastfield Douglas IM1 4AU
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 04.07.2023 Site Visit : 04.07.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.
R 2. The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character.
R 3. The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area.
R 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area.
R 5. The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00527/CON Page 2 of 12
As the demolition works proposed within this application for Registered Building Consent do not involve any proposed alterations to or immediately adjacent to a highway, the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division are not judged to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, and therefore should not be awarded Interest Party Status.
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):
13 Eastfield, Douglas, as 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 Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on 2 October 2023 and deferred for a site visit.
0.2 The Officer report remains unchanged. Any further representations received or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is Eastfield House (named Eastfield Mansion House on the mapping system), a two and a half storey property occupying a corner plot at the western end of Eastfield in Douglas. The principal building dates from the 19th century and was originally detached, with a 20th century extension that attaches the property on its eastern side with the other properties in the terrace. The site is within the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area. This property can be accessed via Mount Bradda at the eastern end and Brighton Terrace at the western end.
1.2 This site was previously in use as a residential care home and was formally a large detached dwelling. Its front boundary has significant sections enclosed with hedging and some mature trees which open up at the vehicular entrance.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks registered building consent for the demolition of the former nursing home and outbuildings - demolition of elements relating to the application 20/00526/B.
2.2 The works will involve the demolition of the Eastfield mansion house and its replacement with a terrace of five three storey dwellings. A new pitch roofed garage block comprising five garages with storage over will also be erected on site.
2.3 The application is supported by a Design Statement which seeks to describe the proposal, provide a description of the site (including nature of tree and plantings within the site), and character of the locality, discuss the site history, and structural Appraisal of the existing building on site. o The Statement notes that a structural survey of the Care Home buildings was carried out by Manx Structural Solutions Ltd and a report was issued dated 19th January 2023, which recommends "...demolition of the existing structure to be the safest and most viable solution
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00527/CON Page 3 of 12
to allow suitable redevelopment", and state that this application is proposing the demolition of the Care Home buildings in accordance with the recommendation of the Structural Report.
2.4 A Built Heritage Statement prepared by Pegasus Group and dated October 2023 has been submitted with the application. This Report concludes by stating the following: "7.3 Eastfield House's contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric and its historic interest as one of the early developments in the area. Nonetheless, it should be reiterated that the Conservation Area covers a large area of Victorian townscape, and the site only comprises one small part. Furthermore, there are no notable designed or intended views to or from the site."
7.4 The current proposals include the demolition of Eastfield House and its modern link extension, the retention of No. 14 Eastfield and the redevelopment of the site with 5no. Self- contained dwellings with associated parking and private gardens. The proposals have been driven by the internal layout, poor condition and financial viability of the site as it presently stands, even with an approval for its conversion to a single family dwelling, and the financial viability of the site to be converted into flats. Overall, the proposals will result in some negative impact to the significance of the Conservation Area through the demolition of an early dwelling. However, as per POLICY CA/6 in Planning Policy Statement 1/01, this negative impact should be weighed against the merits or public benefits of the proposals, including any heritage benefits."
2.5 A Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Planning Consultancy also accompanies the proposal. This statement argues that: o Retention and re-use of the existing building is neither economically nor structurally sensible. o Whilst the most recent application for demolition of the building was refused, they understand that at least part of that decision was based upon there being no detailed scheme for replacement to enable an assessment to be made of the benefits of the proposed scheme, its acceptability in planning terms and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and that this information has now been provided. o The building is not in its original condition, has been physically attached to the terrace to the north east by a modern, unattractive link building and has also had unattractive additions attached to the rear and front. o The proposed development aims to provide modern standards of living including car parking and energy efficiency whilst at the same time, presenting a traditionally styled building which continues important architectural elements such as height, finish materials, orientation and proportion. o The development will provide much needed, sustainable accommodation in the Island's principal settlement in a form which visually complements the area.
2.6 The Structural Report prepared by Manx Structural Solutions Ltd, and dated 19th January 2023 concludes by stating the following: o The condition of the load bearing elements is poor and the majority needs replacement. There is evidence of poor construction and signs of structural movement. o The timber roof, load bearing studwork walls and majority of timber floor joists require replacement. o Retention of the external random rubble masonry walls has been explored. This would require extensive propping and temporary works to facilitate. o The potential for movement of the retained random rubble masonry during the construction period is hazardous. o Remedial works required to ensure the future stability of the external walls would result in extensive reconstruction of existing features due to installation of temporary works. o The retention of the external masonry walls is not the safest solution to facilitate the redevelopment of Eastfield House.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00527/CON Page 4 of 12
o
Taking all of the above into account, in our opinion the, the retention of the building is
not economically viable.
o
Retention of the building would only be possible through replacement of the majority of
the components of the current build structure (i.e. masonry, floor and roof timbers, roof
coverings windows etc.) and therefore the finished product whilst similar in appearance would
effectively be a new build.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East (Map 5 - Douglas Central) as 'Predominantly Residential', and the site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.
3.2 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 3.2.1 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.
3.2.2 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.
3.2.3 S19 Control of Demolition in Conservation Areas (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 3.3.1 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;
3.3.2 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.
3.3.3 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.
3.3.4 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.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00527/CON Page 5 of 12
3.3.5 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
3.4 PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 1/01 3.4.1 POLICY 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 it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings).
3.4.2 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, 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.
3.4.3 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
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00527/CON Page 6 of 12
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.
3.4 WOODBOURNE ROAD CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL 2003 3.4.1 Paragraph 3.23 and 3.24 states: "3.23 It is clear that in the planning of the Gardens and Squares in the Conservation Area, there was an overriding intention that the gardens are in harmony with the architecture that evolved around them. House frontages with their decorative features such as railings, gates, cornices, etched glass and ridge tiles were intended to be seen and appreciated for their individuality and splendour. The open Properties benefit from retention of plaster mouldings, sliding sash windows, the variety of bays, stuccoed quoins, string courses and hooded mouldings, all adding to the richness of architectural forms. The abundance of high quality fabric is a major contributory factor to the distinct character of the area. These qualities have survived many generations and enrich the quality of our built environment. Despite the increasing intrusions of modern day living. It is very difficult to draw a definite edge to the Conservation Area, as the buildings continue in typical design and quality detail into adjacent roads and avenues. The repetition of form along arterial and secondary routes, combined with a variety of detail, serves to draw these adjoining thoroughfares into a cohesive whole which is worthy of recognition and protection. The 'green elements of this environment and their immediate surrounds provide an obvious centre on which to base an appraisal of this fine array of predominantly nineteenth century architecture."
3.24 The area of Eastfield, Mount Bradda, Brighton Terrace and Westmount corresponds to that shown on a plan dated 1851 prepared by George Raby, Architect and Surveyor and titled 'Plan of Building Ground situated at Rosemount'. The area was part of the Joyner estate and the plan shows layout of 53 dwellings. Fourteen were built and from what is now known as Eastfield, but the remainder were not built in their original form. The 1869 Ordnance Survey
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00527/CON Page 7 of 12
Map shows the present street pattern with central gardens and with Eastfield House and Rose Lodge occupying corner positions at the east and west side of the square. The terrace known as Eastfield was an early approach to Town Planning in that covenants were incorporated into deeds of sale in an endeavour to control the design of properties and the retention of open space. The evolution of the remaining properties fronting onto the gardens happened predominantly in the 1880's and resulted in an interesting and lively mix of architecture. The retention of private allotment gardens is a survivor of the original plan."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of the following applications which are considered relevant to the current application:
4.2 PA 22/01326/CON for Demolition of all existing buildings on site - Refused. The application was refused for the following reasons: "1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.
The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character.
The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area.
The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area."
4.3 PA 20/00281/CON for Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 20/00280/B - Permitted.
4.3 PA 20/00280/B for Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling - Permitted.
4.4 PA 06/00605/B for Re-roofing of building with slate to replicate existing - Permitted.
4.5 PA 99/01614/A for Approval in principle to construct 4 apartment building - Refused on Review.
4.6 PA 97/00567/B for Erection of replacement porch and installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to front & side elevations - Permitted.
4.7 PA 92/01197/B for Alterations, first floor extension and construction of nursing wing - Refused on Review.
4.8 PA 92/00095/B for Alterations and extensions & construction of 35-bed nursing wing - Refused on Review.
4.9 PA 86/00782/B for Conversion to residential home for the elderly, extension to kitchen, and link corridor, 14 Eastfield and Eastfield House - Permitted.
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00527/CON Page 8 of 12
4.10 PA 86/00609/A for Approval in principle to conversion of premises into residential home for the elderly and incorporation into Eastfield House, 14 Eastfield - Permitted.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has made the following comments regarding the application (24 May 2023): o They state that they have no objections to this application, but note that the proposals will result in the loss of areas of trees. o They state that mitigation is proposed in the form of new hedge and tree planting, and confirm that they are happy with the proposed tree species, but note that no species list has yet been provided for the hedge creation. o They request that either the applicant provides confirmation of the hedging species to be used prior to determination of this application, or that a condition is secured for a landscape plan to be provided which contains this detail. o They request that no invasive non-native species listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act 1990 (this includes Griselinia), or cherry laurel, should be used in the planting. o They request that the standard Planning condition securing the tree and hedge planting and replacement of trees in the event that they become damaged of defective should also be applied. o They request that Due to the short term loss of wildlife habitat on site, through the loss of a number of trees, and because of the amount of time it will take mitigation tree and hedge planting to develop, that the applicants either provide details of bird bricks to be installed in the new properties prior to determination of this application, or a condition is secured for a bird brick/box plan to be secured as a condition on approval. o Their recommendation is for universal swift nest bricks, (at least 2) to be installed high up under the eaves of the north east elevation of the end terrace (unit 5). They also recommend the installation of bat bricks, high up under the eaves of the south west elevation of the end terrace (Unit 1) as an enhancement for wildlife on site. o The applicants are advised that there is potential for roosting bats and nesting birds in the Eastfield Mansion House, and the need to undertake thorough checks for nesting birds and roosting bats prior to demolition, which will require all external holes, crevices, lead flashing or loose tiles and roof voids, if present, to be investigated.
5.2 Douglas Borough Council has no objections to the application (25 May 2023).
5.3 DEFA's Assistant Registered Building's Officer has made the following comments regarding the application (20 August 2023: o 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. o 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. o The heritage report submitted with application 22/01326/CON (for which I was the case officer), concludes in section 5.40 on page 30 that although the modern extensions and alterations diminish the building's contribution, the property does still make an "overall positive contribution to the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area." I have no reason to disagree with the applicant's own qualified heritage consultants. o It is therefore considered that preserving the building is desirable in terms of the tests within section 16 of the Act, and demolishing the building would clearly fail to preserve its features of architectural and historic interest. o Demolishing the building would also fail the tests within section 18 as it would not preserve the conservation area's character.
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00527/CON Page 9 of 12
o By demolishing a building that the applicant's own heritage consultants have concluded makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, the application clearly also fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 35 and Environment Policy 39 within the Strategic Plan, as the application fails to protect the fabric of the conservation area, fails to preserve the character of the conservation area, and fails to retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area.
5.4 The Owners/occupiers of 13 Eastfield, Douglas, the abutting property to the application site have written in with the following comments in a letter dated 19 August 2023: o They raise concerns regarding parking in the area. o They note that there is a lack of parking generally and to have an extra 5 x 4-bed houses will cause further issues. o They state that although the application provides a garage and parking for 2 cars per property, no provision has been made for visitor parking, whilst noting that the parking provision would not prevent the parking of other vehicles belonging to prospective purchasers in Eastfield/West Mount. o They also note that there is also a high possibility of the homeowners having more than 2 cars if they have adult children residing with them. o They raise concerns regarding construction vehicles to and from the premises with Eastfield itself being a single lane road and West Mount not much wider.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issue to be assessed by this Registered Building Application is the impact of the proposed demolition on the fabric and character of the Conservation Area. It also important to have regard to the fact that section 19 of the Act states that sections 15 and 16 of the Act apply to the building as they apply to a registered building.
6.2 Impact on the fabric and character of the Conservation Area (T&CPA & EP 35) 6.2.1 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 heritage report submitted with the application concludes in section 5.40 on page 30 that although the modern extensions and alterations diminish the building's contribution, the property does still make an overall positive contribution to the conservation area. As a mid to late 19th century building with surviving historic fabric, it is agreed that whilst in need of renovation, the property makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. It is, therefore, considered that preserving the building is desirable in terms of the tests within section 16 of the Act, and demolishing the building would clearly fail to preserve its features of architectural and historic interest.
6.2.2 Likewise, Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan clearly states that proposals for development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Conservation Areas. This position is further reinforced by Environment Policy 35 which 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. The western boundary of the curtilage of Eastfield House forms the western edge of the conservation area, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the conservation area boundary has been deliberately drawn to include the property. It is considered reasonable to judge that demolishing the historic building would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. As one of the older buildings within this area of the conservation area, the historic part of the building clearly makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and its demolition would therefore clearly fail to preserve or enhance the conservation area.
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00527/CON Page 10 of 12
6.3 Other Considerations (PPs 1/01 & EP 39) 6.3.1 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. These include; the condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance, the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use, and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
6.3.2 The condition of the building. 6.3.2.1 In terms of the condition of the building, it is considered that a structural report has been submitted with the application. The report notes various issues regarding the condition of the existing Eastfield Mansion House, and highlights the need for the replacement of some elements such as a number of the load bearing elements, timber roof structure, and timber floor joists, although it does not in any way state that the building cannot be restored. This report also does not any recommend demolition of the building. Based on the foregoing, it is not judged that the building's condition is sufficient reason to justify demolition.
6.3.3 The cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance. 6.3.3.1 With regard to the costs of repairing and maintaining the property, it is considered that the building has most recently been used as a care home, until 2017. It is also considered that approval was granted in 2020 to return the building to a single dwelling, with sufficient information provided in the Design and Access Statement which concluded that the building could be efficiently restored for use as a sustainable building to serve its intended residential use as a single family home. This Statement on Thermal Performance and Carbon Footprint stated the following within Section 3.4: "The Structure will exceed the minimum statutory requirements by reducing energy use, CO2 emissions, water use and production of pollution/waste during construction and use. Materials and construction methods will be chosen for minimum environmental impact and greater durability...It is intended to increase the buildings energy efficiency by influencing materials of construction and delivering passive engineering solutions wherever possible within the constraints of the buildings comfortable operation. It was also stated that the 'Fabric first approach' and other steps detailed in this section of the report would serve to improve the thermal performance and reduce the carbon footprint of the property. These highlighted the fact that the building could be restored at sustainably."
6.3.3.2 It is also vital to note that the Built Heritage Statement provided by the applicants does not provide any details in terms of estimates for the cost of refurbishments of the building (relative to the cost of the new development), and it is not clear that any such efforts have been made cumulatively over time to restore the building. In fact, this statement does not in any way provide details of total costs of refurbishment or conversions for alternative uses, but only refers to the sale value for the previously approved scheme under PA 20/00280/B by stating the following within Paragraph 6.2 (page 31): "Although it is acknowledged that the reinstatement of Eastfield House as a single-family dwelling, the demolition of the modern link and the reinstatement of No. 14 as a single-family dwelling would be the ideal proposal in heritage terms for the site, the proposed development would have an anticipated sale value of circa £1.75m to £2m based on reasonable development profit margins, and there was no interest in the site, as there is not perceived to be a requirement for this sort of high-end property in this location."
6.3.3.3 Clearly there would be a financial cost to renovating the building. However, given that the building is one of the oldest surviving in the area and is acknowledged to have historic and architectural interest, the cost of repair and maintenance is not judged sufficient in its own right to justify demolition. It is also vital to note that adequate periodic maintenance and repair of the building as required during its lifetime would have resulted in a much reduced cost to
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00527/CON Page 11 of 12
any renovation now required, but this cost has been exacerbated by years of neglect which does not in any way strengthen the argument for removal on grounds of increased costs.
6.3.4 The adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use. 6.2.4.1 From review of the supporting documents (including the Structural Report and heritage Statement), it is clear that almost no effort has been made since 2017 to address the issues with the building that now exist. In fact, it is clear from historic Photos that although approval was granted in 2020 to return Eastfield House to a single dwelling, very little (if any) of the works have been undertaken, save for the demolition of elements which was evident during the site visit on 04.07.2023. Therefore, it is not considered that sufficient effort has been made to restore the building as required by Policy RB/6 of PPS 1/01.
6.3.5 The merits of alternative proposals for the site. 6.3.5.1 The Built Heritage Statement submitted with the application describes an alternative proposal to construct five dwellings on the site. However, from review of the scheme submitted it is clear that the design and appearance of the proposed scheme would not pass for a truly traditional terrace nor does bear any special features or characteristics that would ensure it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as an appropriate replacement.
6.3.5.2 The above is hinged on the fact that the proposed terraced building does not have chimney stacks which are a key feature of the existing dwelling which has prominent chimney stacks which contribute to its character. Also, the proposed two storey bay window projection and cottage style entrance door are not features of the immediate street scene. These buildings also do not have the rear courtyards which serve to define the dwellings here by providing enclosures for other less important detail. It is also noted that the distinct feature mouldings around the windows such as the hood mouldings (on Bradda Mount), render bands (on Brighton Terrace and Westmount), the Cobbled window mouldings (on Eastfield Terrace) are not in any way represented on the new dwellings. The roof pitch is also steeper than the pitch angle of the existing dwellings on Eastfield terrace which it would sit directly parallel to. Likewise, the buildings bulk and massing is in no way similar to those in the immediate locality which are narrower, with rear outriggers providing avenues for creating additional accommodation, as it spans 12.3m (13.6m including depth of bay windows) and as such would have a depth 3.3m wider than the adjacent buildings on Eastfield terrace which are 9.3m wide (excluding the outriggers).
6.3.5.3 Overall, it is concluded that the proposed replacement terrace would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area, and as such is not judged to be of sufficient merit to serve as a replacement for the existing Eastfield Mansion House.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is judged that the proposal fails to protect or enhance the fabric of the Conservation Area, nor would it preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. As such, the proposal fails to meet the tests of Sections 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999; Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan 2016; and policies RB/3, RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSONS 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) Manx National Heritage; and (c) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/00527/CON Page 12 of 12
8.2. In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 16.10.2023
Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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