214428

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      25/90062/GB                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 25/90062/GB Applicant : Heron And Brearley Proposal : Replacement of gutter and cornice/parapet (in association with 24/01269/CON) Site Address : The George Hotel The Parade Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LG

Technical Officer: Tom Sinden Photo Taken : Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.03.2025 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals are judged to meet the tests of Section 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, and the tests of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 32 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016, as the replacement parapet is judged to preserve the Registered Building and Conservation Area. Although the replacement parapet would be in a different material and lower in height than the existing, the reduction in strain on the historic fabric below and the long-term benefits to the building overall are judge to result in a preservation of the Registered Building and the special character of the Conservation Area. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings 100, 101 and 103, together with the other supporting information dated 17.1.2025 on the application file.

__

Right to Appeal

Right to Appeal:

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      25/90062/GB                                     Page  2  of  4

Manx National Heritage - Comments received relating to parapet height are judged to amount to a relevant objection.

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

D.O.I. Highways - No objection __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is The George Hotel, Castletown. Registered Building number 38, the building dates from 1833 and retains elements of its historic fabric and detailing. The site also sits within the Castletown Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks approval to replace the existing front elevation parapet upstand and cornice moulding. The application is a result of the partial collapse of the existing parapet. The application is concurrent with registered building consent application 25/01269/CON.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY. 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South 2013 as mixed use, and within the Castletown Conservation Area. The site is not in an area at risk of flooding.

3.2 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016

General Policy 2 Strategic Policy 4 Environment Policy 32 Environment Policy 35

3.3 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man

POLICY RB/3 POLICY RB/5

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions S18 Designation of conservation areas

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There are 26 previous applications (a combination of planning and registered building consent) on the property. However, given the very focused nature of this application, none are judged to be of relevance in this instance.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division - No highways interest (4.2.2025).

6.2 Manx National Heritage - submission makes reference to historic photographs showing the form of the parapet gutter, and comment these make it clear that the failed parapet, fabricated using concrete blocks / bricks, was a replacement for an earlier parapet of similar height. Given the application photograph showing the relationship between the finishing render on the rear side of the parapet and the plywood lining, it appears clear that both were constructed at the

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      25/90062/GB                                     Page  3  of  4

same time. We also note that the roof covering appears modern, and differs from the covering visible in the late-20th century photographs (at which time no skylights were present, and a soil vent also present has since been removed), which itself differs from the random width/reducing courses arrangement apparent on the older photographs. It is possible that the type of roof sarking / Tyvek currently present will help date the most recent intervention. The plywood lining appears entirely consistent with the most recent roof-work, and hence, we would suggest, the reconstruction of the failed parapet was undertaken at the same time. It is therefore unfortunate that the proposed replacement cornice and parapet seeks to substantially reduce the vertical dimensions of the latter, as the evidence above suggests that the failed parapet is of an historically-accurate height. The photos adduced in support of our comments also show that a high parapet of this type appears historically consistent with the design of the same feature on the similarly decorative façade of the Isle of Man Bank next door, so it would be unfortunate to lose this. We trust this will be taken into account in your consideration of these applications.

6.3 Castletown Commissioners were consulted on 29.1.2025. At the time of writing this report (3.3.2025) no representation has been received, and it is therefore assumed that the Commissioners have no comments to make.

7.0 ASSESSMENT Statutory Test 7.1 Section 16 of the Act states that the "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." In addition to this, Section 18 of the Act requires the Department to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area in the exercise of any powers under the Act.

7.2 In this instance, the application proposes to replace the existing front elevation parapet upstand and cornice moulding. The existing parapet is constructed with a combination of stone, brick and mortar/plaster, with metal ties. It is proposed that the replacement parapet, gutter and cornice moulding would be constructed in aluminium and high density EPS polystyrene with a stone effect finish. The replacement would be significantly lighter in weight than the existing in order to reduce the strain imposed on the historic front wall of the building below, and would also be lower in height in order to reduce the loadings on the fabric below. As per section 6.1 of this report, the proposed reduction in height of the parapet has been discussed within the comment received from Manx National Heritage. The comments from Manx National Heritage are very useful and their observation are correct that the replacement parapet would be a departure from the existing arrangement. However, having discussed the rationale for the proposed change with the application's structural engineer, and visited the site to view the proposed parapet arrangement, I consider that the harm caused by the change in parapet height will be less than substantial, and the benefits to the preservation of the historic fabric below will offset this harm. I therefore judge that the proposals would pass the statutory test within sections 16 and 18 of the Act.

Policy Tests 7.4 The policies within the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 variously require that proposals relating to a registered building should preserve, protect, or enhance the building, and state that extensions and alterations which would affect detrimentally the character of the building will not be permitted. As discussed in section 7.2, although the materials and detailing of the replacement parapet would be slightly different to the existing, the alterations are intended to reduce the stress on the remaining historic fabric below. Given the high-level nature of these works and the benefits to the historic fabric below, I judge that the proposals would preserve the registered building and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

8.0 CONCLUSION

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      25/90062/GB                                     Page  4  of  4

8.1 The proposals are judged to meet the tests of Section 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, and the tests of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 32 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016, as the replacement parapet is judged to preserve the registered building and conservation area. Although the replacement parapet would be in a different material and lower in height than the existing, the reduction in strain on the historic fabric below and the long-term benefits to the building overall are judge to result in a preservation of the registered building and the special character of the conservation area. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

__

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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 03.03.2025

Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.