6 September 2018 · Delegated - Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Queens Pier Entrance, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 1np
The proposal involves modest structural reinforcements under the pier with side brackets to support a previously approved widening, and restoration of the gatehouse/entrance building with reinstatement of windows (treated softwood frames with toughened glass and mesh protection), a new sympathetic clock, two new 6m fla…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The key issue was whether the proposals would 'affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest', per Environment Policy 32.
Strategic Policy 4
Requires proposals to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Registered Buildings. Assessed as compliant for stabilisation scheme protecting pier's fabric without detriment.
General Policy 2
Permits development respecting site/surroundings in scale/form/design, not adversely affecting townscape character or amenity. Works to gatehouse seen as betterment with no adverse impacts.
Environment Policy 32
Prohibits extensions/alterations detrimentally affecting Registered Building character. Modest pier works not prominent; gatehouse restoration enhances without harm.
Environment Policy 34
Prefers traditional materials for pre-1920 buildings. Painting in muted shade and softwood window frames with glass/mesh accepted as appropriate for maintenance.
RB/3 General Criteria Applied in Considering Registered Building Applications
Considers building's importance, physical features, and setting. Pier's Victorian rarity and gatehouse features justified reinstatement works preserving interest.
RB/5 Alterations and Extensions
Presumption against alterations affecting character unless justified. Works necessary for stabilisation/restoration, with no cumulative harm, endorsed by Registered Building Officer.
Time limit
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
No opposition. Proposals enable pier reuse with no changes to access; portacabin and contractor parking on hardstanding; flag poles should not overhang highway.
Support the scheme but suggest rebuilding gatehouse with twin kiosks as in Victorian times, though acknowledge painting, clock and flags may be practicable.
Highway Services raised no objection to the application with no new highway issues identified. Ian and Elizabeth Bleasdale expressed support for the volunteer efforts but raised concerns about the aesthetic appeal of the entrance/gatehouse.
Key concern: flag poles to be put back on the building should not overhang the public highway or affect the parking area
Highway Services Division
No ObjectionThe proposals would enable the disused pier to be brought back into use.; No new highway issues should arise from the proposals.; Highway Services does not oppose the application.; Recommendation: DNO
Ian K Bleasdale Elizabeth Bleasdale
Whilst we applaud the hard work being taken on by these marvellous volunteers; we remain concerned about the Entrance/Gatehouse building and really wish it could be rebuilt with the twin kiosks as in Victorian times.; Perhaps white with red ‘trimmings’ might serve? Some flowering shrubs in pots, each side of the entrance, might help also. Fuchsia perhaps? Or Azalea?
