Loading document...
Application No.: 18/01247/CON Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Public Estates & Housing Proposal: Registered Building consent for the removal of a dividing wall (in association with 18/01245/B) Site Address: Works Depot Spit Corner East Quay Peel Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 24.10.2018 Site Visit: 24.10.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.01.2019 _________________________________________________________________
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the site plan drawing received on 22.11.18. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WHERE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS RECOMMENDING REFUSAL
1.1 The site is the DoI depot situated inside Spit Corner, also known as Weatherglass Corner at the junction of Shore Road and East Quay. The depot is surrounded by a 1.8m high sandstone wall which is interrupted by the frontages of a number of buildings: the Sailors' Shelter and the
2.1 Proposed is Registered Building consent for the demolition of the wall. This is being considered alongside a scheme for the erection of a new building within the depot, and the removal of the wall would facilitate easier and more vehicle parking within the site but is not an essential part of it: the new building could be considered without the removal of the wall. Currently, there is a container alongside it. - 2.2 The wall is a different colour to the stonework on the adjacent buildings, which is rich, red sandstone. It also has the appearance of something built at a later time. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within Peel's Conservation Area which has necessitated the RB consent application for the demolition of the wall. Planning approval is not required for this work. - 3.2 The relevant policies are those which relate to the preservation of fabric of historic interest and the enhancement, where possible, of those elements which are not as encapsulated in EP35 and PPS1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. Whilst the wall itself is not Registered - The Harbourmaster's House is (RB270) but its curtilage does not extend to this wall. Registered Buildings are subject to EP30 which presumes against the demolition of an RB. EP32 presumes against alterations and extensions which would affect detrimentally the character of the RB as one of special architectural or historic interest. Strategic Policy 4 requires that development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Registered Buildings and Strategic Policy 5 requires that new development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The depot and buildings around it have been subject to a number of applications including the conversion of the Harbourmaster's House to a coastguard centre and the construction of toilets and a workshop/store, none of which are relevant to the consideration of the application. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they have no highway interest in the application (07.12.18).
5.2 Peel Town Commissioners object to this and 18/01245/B on the basis that the modern construction of the storage unit was not in keeping with the Conservation Area and will be visually prominent to walkers on the busy Peel Hill walkways. There is no reference in the objection to the wall, which is the subject of this application, but nevertheless they state that they object to this application (13.12.18). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The wall is not old, is not of the same age or interest as the historical buildings within the vicinity and its loss does not conflict with any of the Conservation policies cited above. The Registered Buildings Officer has been consulted and has no objection to the demolition of the wall.
6.2 Whilst the local authority object, the focus of their concerns is clearly the new workshop not the removal of the wall. Indeed the wall cannot be publicly seen from anywhere. Whilst the applications have been submitted at the same time, they are not inter-dependent and if one were approved, it would not automatically follow that the other would be too and likewise if one were considered unacceptable, the other would not also fail. If the workshop were to be refused, the removal of this wall would still provide useful parking and manoeuvring space for those existing users of the site with no historical or visual detriment to the building group, arguably an improvement as the wall is not old or of the same materials as either the more interesting, older buildings alongside or the more modern ones. CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal complies with the relevant policies and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:
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 it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 21.01.2019
Signed : S CORLETT 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown