Loading document...
1.1 The aim of this statement is to provide background information to the planning application and to set out the relevant policies to consider in respect of the proposed development.
1.2 The site is owned by the Department of Infrastructure, and the application has been submitted by the Department. As such, the application must be considered by an Independent Inspector and the decision taken by the Council of Ministers as set out in paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013.
2.1 The application site is a small area of land that comprises public highway of both road and pavement on Walpole Avenue near to its junction with Loch Promenade to the north. It is within the Douglas Promenade Conservation Area.
3.1 Retrospective planning approval is sought for the change of materials on the footways along two stretches of footpath within Walpole Avenue. Planning approval was previously granted for these footways to be laid with granite under PA 12/01327/B, but instead they have been laid with tarmac.
3.2 The Department of Infrastructure's Highway Services Division has submitted a 'Retrospective Statement of Case' to outline the reasoning behind their use of different materials to those approved under PA 12/01327/B.
3.3 The Jubilee Clock is a Registered Building located in Douglas Promenade Conservation Area, designated on the 9th August 2002, and roughly 20 metres from the application site. As such, and while the application site does not include the Jubilee Clock, the assessment of the application should be mindful of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 'Conservation of the Historic Environment', which contains policies relating to applications for Registered Building Consent (Policy RB/3 and RB/5) and also to applications within Conservation Areas (Policy CA/2). Regard should also be had to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
3.4 In terms of RB/3, the key extract is as follows: "The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are...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)."
3.5 In terms of RB/5, the key extract is as follows: "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, 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."
3.6 Policy CA/2 states: "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.
"Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
3.7 The Jubilee Clock has been moved several times in its history. John Millar Nicholson, the famous Manx artist, photographed it in the 1980s showing it in the centre of Victoria Street, closer to the former Villiers Hotel. The move to its previous location happened sometime in the 1990s. The recent move, approved under the 2012 application, was not judged to in any way compromise the character or setting of the Registered Building and its location within the Conservation Area and was therefore acceptable.
3.8 Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, meanwhile, states: "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."
4.1 Copies of all the Representations received are attached at Appendix A to this report. For ease of reference, summaries thereof are provided below. It was thought that it might be helpful for the Inspector to have a formal response from the applicant to these Representations; this is attached at Appendix B.
4.2 Twickenham Investments Limited, in a letter date-stamped as having been received 20th October 2014, object to the planning application. They identify the fact that the site is a highly important part of the Regeneration Zone and Conservation Area of Douglas, and query the factual accuracy of the applicants' Retrospective Statement of Case and also query the reasoning behind the works being undertaken. They also believe that the granting of the application would set a regrettable precedent.
4.3 Chapman Chartered Surveyors, in a letter date-stamped as having been received 22nd October 2014, comment primarily on procedural matters and outline the history and outcomes of meetings that took place between themselves, their client (Twickenham Investments Limited), Curtins Consulting Engineers and the applicants.
4.4 Curtins Consulting Engineers, who were engaged to design repairs to the basement light wells of the Jubilee Building by Twickenham Investments Limited, in a letter dated 28th October 2014, comment primarily on procedural matters and outline the history and outcomes of meetings that took place between themselves, their client (Twickenham Investments Limited), Chapman Chartered Surveyors and the applicants. They also indicate that there is only one basement light well in the Jubilee Building and that this did not prevent the majority of the pavement to be laid with paving.
5.1 The key matters for assessment are whether or not the proposed works will affect the setting of the Registered Building and whether or not they would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
5.2 In terms of the former, it is considered that the works previously approved in 2012 were far more significant in terms of the impact of the setting of the Registered Building - which was, in fact, moved as part of those works. Given the location of proposed tarmac around a corner from the clock tower, it is considered that its setting is satisfactorily preserved.
5.3 Turning to the latter, which is perhaps the more critical, issue, the concerns raised should be noted. However, it should also be noted that, unless the entire highway was finished in granite, which it is not, the granite would have to end at some point in the highway where there would be a resulting 'break' between the attractive granite and the utilitarian concrete.
5.4 It is of course a fundamental principle that retrospective planning application should not be treated any differently to those that are not retrospective. It is also true that what is now proposed must be balanced against what was in situ previously and not what was previously approved. It was noted as part of the 2012 application that the highway finish gave a poor impression. The Inspector appointed to report on that application at the time noted the following points at his paragraphs 16 and 18 respectively:
"16 - There is no doubt that a comprehensive scheme to refurbish the full length of the Promenade is required."
"18 - The existing highways and streetscape finishes and street furniture are in poor condition and neither enhance nor preserve the character or appearance of the Promenade Conservation Area. The proposed works would certainly improve the character and appearance of this 'gateway area' and the surface materials and finishes, comprising high to medium quality natural stone, asphalt and concrete would provide a much improved streetscape."
6.1 The Inspector appointed to report on the 2012 application recommended a standard set of conditions in respect of (i) timescales, (ii) plans and (iii) a sample of materials to be submitted and approved in writing.
6.2 None of these conditions is recommended to be applied in this instance. Firstly, the application is retrospective and therefore a timescale (or a condition requiring the works' retention) would be unnecessary. Secondly, plans are now referred to on approval notices by way of an informative. Thirdly, and again since the application is retrospective, a material sample is unnecessary.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown