183748

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/00498/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/00498/B Applicant : Mrs Dawn Collins Proposal : Conversion and erection of extension to former public house to create a residential dwelling (in association with 19/00499/CON) Site Address : Ship Inn Hope Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AS

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.06.2019 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. Whilst the existing building is certainly not traditional it has a quirky element which makes the building easily identifiable without being particularly prominent, particularly given the only two storey element to the Mill Road elevation. What is proposed increases the built form in a way that is strikingly different in terms of form, mass and materials, to the existing and the surrounding buildings and the inclusion of additional floor area at roof level removes the only traditional element of the Mill Road elevation, from public view. As such, the proposed design, finish, mass and appearance of the Mill Road elevation would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan 2016. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the L shaped curtilage of the Ship Inn which sits between Hope Street and Mill Road, looking towards the harbour in Castletown. The building has two distinctly different elevations to the two highways: the elevation to Hope Street is a three storey, traditional frontage which, whilst currently in a poor state of repair, has original sliding sash windows in eight of its nine apertures (single upper and lower panes on the ground floor and Georgian six over six panes above with a single top opening casement in the second floor). There is currently a sign above the ground floor windows.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/00498/B                                     Page  2  of  4

1.2 The other elevation facing onto Mill Road, however, is very different. Whilst the rear of the three storey element is similar to the front, there is a large two storey addition which is designed to mimic the front deck of a ship, complete with funnel on top (which has recently been blown off). At ground floor level there is a recessed area with an overhanging section at first floor level which contains a row of windows with a sign underneath. This frontage sits 10m from Mill Road.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the building to a single dwelling.

2.2 The works involve the replacement of the ground floor single pane windows on Hope Street with Georgian pane windows (six over six) to match the others on this elevation as well as the replacement of the second floor casement with a matching Georgian pane arrangement.

2.3 The existing door on Hope Street is to be replaced with a fixed light with timber opening element and the window alongside will have its cill level raised and the same style of window installed.

2.4 On the Mill Road elevation, the first floor element is to be replaced with a new cantilevered overhanging floor which is finished in Siberian larch with large areas of glazing and a glazed balustrade system. This is replicated over a smaller area on the new third floor projection and the second floor will be similar in form but clad in grey coloured standing seam finish including an encased flue.

2.5 The side windows are to be replaced with a Georgian style of glazing consistent with the Hope Street frontage albeit some are to be casement opening.

2.6 The dwelling will be a single unit with an integral single garage and space in front for additional parking.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Residential. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area. The building is not Registered.

3.2 Development within a CA is required by EP35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Guide to the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. The development should also comply with General Policy 2 as follows:

Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality"

3.3 The various reports into the historic importance of Castletown (Cullen Report 1971 and the Conservation Study c 1998) make no specific reference to this site. The building is not referred to in the Area Plan as being worthy of consideration for Registration.

Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 Mixed Use Proposal 1:

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/00498/B                                     Page  3  of  4

In order to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Mixed Use areas in Port Erin, Castletown and Ballasalla, there will be a presumption in favour of the retention of existing retail units on the ground floor although each case will be determined upon its circumstances and merits.

Strategic Plan 10.8 Retention of Existing Local Shops and Public Houses The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities,or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas.

Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There is no relevant planning history for this case.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 There are no representations on the file at the time of writing.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed change of use to residential is acceptable and secondly, whether the physical changes to the building preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area (EP 35) or otherwise respect the site and its surroundings (GP2b) or have a damaging impact on the character of the surrounding townscape (GP2c and g).

6.2 There is a general presumption against the loss of town centre public houses for the reasons given in paragraph 10.8 of the Strategic Plan. No information has been provided by the applicant to support a decision which is in conflict with this. However, the public house is not currently open and is in poor repair. The Google Streetview image captured in 2010 appears to show it being open for business. In addition, the site lies within a residential area where the comings and goings from a public house could be considered to be unneighbourly although the site is within very close distance of the town centre. The loss of the public house to residential use is therefore not considered to be objectionable in this case.

6.3 The impact on the Conservation Area and the area more generally will be significant. Whilst the existing building is certainly not traditional it has a quirky element which makes the building easily identifiable without being particularly prominent, particularly given the only two storey element to the Mill Road elevation.

6.4 What is proposed increases the built form in a way that is strikingly different in terms of form, mass and materials, to the existing and the surrounding buildings and the inclusion of additional floor area at roof level removes the only traditional element of the Mill Road elevation, from public view.

6.5 It is considered that the proposed design, finish, mass and appearance of the Mill Road elevation would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to EP 35 and GP2b, c and g.

CONCLUSION

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/00498/B                                     Page  4  of  4

7.1 The application is not supported.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 19.06.2019

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

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.