**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 20/00466/GB — Alterations and extension to roof to create observatory room (in association with PA 20/00467/CON)
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2020-10-02
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/30860-braddan-harold-tower-extension-roof/documents/1113366

---

# DEC Officer Report

**Application No.:** 20/00467/CON
**Applicant:** Mr Paul Douglas
**Proposal:** Registered Building consent for alterations and extension to roof to create observatory room (in association with PA 20/00466/GB) Registered Building Nos. 179
**Site Address:** Harold Tower Fort Anne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BN
**Planning Officer:** Mr Peiran Shen
**Photo Taken:** 06.08.2020
**Site Visit:** 06.08.2020
**Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 21.09.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The development would not protect or enhance the fabric or setting of the Registered Building by virtue of the design and appearance. Rathermore, it would detrimentally affect the Registered Building, contrary to Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32, Environment Policy 34 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties/organisation should NOT be given Interested Person Status as they are NOT considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Isle of Man Victorian Society

As they either DID NOT refer to the land in accordance with paragraph A and B of the Interested Person Operational Policy 2019 and as they have NOT explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

### Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage Harold Tower, Fort Anne Road, Douglas, a three-story castle located on the northeast of Fort Anne Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Registered Building Consent is sought in connection with application 20/00751/B. - 2.2 The proposed works is a conical roof extension at roof level as a new observatory room. The proposal would cover up the existing castellation feature on the circular tower.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is within the Proposed Douglas Head Conservation Area. The building is a registered building, no. 179. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.3 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:

- (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
- (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
- (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

4.4 General Policy 2 states: "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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."

4.5 Environment Policy 32 states: "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted." - 4.6 Environment Policy 34 states: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred." - 4.7 Environmental Policy 35 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."

4.8 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) has also listed out some key considerations. - 4.9 POLICY RB/3 states: "General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:

- o The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
- o The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;
- o 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)."

4.10 POLICY RB/5 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS states: "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.

Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.

Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."

5.0 REPRESENTATION - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application (29/05/2020). - 5.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (27/08/2020). - 5.3 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has commented in concerns of bat protection (10/06/2020) and requested photos to assess potential protection measures. The agent replied (10/06/2020) consent to a site visit or a bat survey if required. - 5.4 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society has written in objection to this application (20/07/2020). The society states that Harold Tower, as a part of Douglas Head, is characterised by their make use of castellations. The upper part of the tower is seen above trees all year round. The society believes that whether the structure is removable or not in the future, the proposal constitutes an unnecessary alteration to this Registered Building. The

- Society also believes that there is no guarantee that no damage would occur to the existing tower during the erection or the removal of the proposal.
- 5.5 Isle of Man Victorian Society has written in objection to this application (22/06/2020). The society first expressed their double in referring to Harold Tower as in "Manx Baronial Gothic Style". It then states that imposing of an alien architectural feature on this building is not a sensitive alteration and is against the Strategic Plan and the proposal would "greatly affect the character of the building detrimentally."
- 5.6 The agent has written in reassurance to IOMNHAS (31/07/2020), stating that: "the roof will be designed to be erected, dismantled and removed without damage to the castellations and battlements". The agent also states that "The proposed conical roof works would encapsulate only the tops of the castellations of the existing circular tower. The corbelled and arched underside of the battlements of the tower would remain visible under the new conical roof eaves. There are also many other castellations around the roof parapets of Harold Tower which will remain untouched and visible. Therefore, the roofscape of Harold Tower will continue to be dominated by castellations and battlements."
- 5.7 The Principle Registered Building Officer written in recommending a refusal to this application (11/08/2020). The Officer states that "Turrets of this type have no architectural connection or relationship to the host building. Its scale, form and massing would have a negative visual impact upon the building and would appear visual dominant. Part of the overriding character of this building external appearance is it castellated towers, the proposals would result in the visual loss of these from the principal tower." The Officer argues that "There is no clear argument or justification for this harmful addition"
- 5.8 The agent has written in expressing their disappointment to the PRBO's recommendation (04/09/2020). They argue that the tower has gone through a list of modification and extension throughout its history. "this house has been adapted and altered throughout its lifetime to suit the needs and wants of the owners of that time. Its original design was intended to be almost whimsical in that it was an interpretation of an earlier architectural age. The circular tower that was added at some time later than the original hexagonal footprint/planform, had little in historical precedence in other similar buildings found in and around the Nunnery Estate of that time."

"The Applicant believes that he should be allowed the same opportuniteis as the eariler owners to adapt the house to his needs and wants, and he believes the slate-covered conical rooftop observatory is an apt finish to a round tower that also does not have any architectural percedent to be found elsewhere in the architectural styles of what used to be part of the Nunnery Estate."

The statement then points to Camera Obscura as an example of similar work being proposed. "The Applicant also wishes to restate that he is not disturbing the existing structure, fabric and castellations, these will be subsumed, unharmed within the new roof structure, and if/when the conical roof is (ever) removed the existing structure and fabric with castellations would still be there as they are now, undamaged."

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main concern for this application is whether the design of the extension to this Registered Building is principally acceptable. - 6.2 Strategic Policy 4 states that proposals for development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Registered Buildings. EP 32 states that extensions that "affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted". It is a natural conclusion that for an extension to be principally acceptable, it will

- not only not be detrimental to the Registered Building and its surroundings, but will also need to protect or enhance the Registered Building and its surroundings.
- 6.3 The key controversy is around the conical roof design. On the one hand, the agent and the applicant argued that the conical roof has historical precedence, such as the Strawberry Hill House and the Camera Obscura. On the other hand, the PRBO argue that the proposal has no architectural connection or relationship to the host building and the proposal would obscure the existing castellations and therefore negatively impact the fabric and setting of the Registered Building.
- 6.4 Although Camera Obscura has a conical roof, the building is built as a tourist attraction and not a dwelling. It is difficult to justify transferring the feature of one to the other just because their existing, as they serve different purposes. In the main time, the conical roof on the Strawberry Hill House only exists as a supplement of its castellation design. When observing from the Promenade, the conical feature is hardly noticeable.
- 6.5 The circular tower for Harold Tower, however, is the most prominent feature of the Registered Building. This is mentioned in the IOMNHAS comment as well as during the site visit. The circular tower is visible from the harbour entrance at the sea in August when the vegetation is at their fullest. The proposal will add the conical roof on top and therefore becoming the most dominant feature of the building. This is not the same as the supporting feature function of its counterpart on Strawberry Hill House. Therefore, both building cannot be used in support of such design is suitable for this building.
- 6.6 The other controversy is whether the removal of some castellation feature is acceptable. The applicant and the agent argue that there are still two towers remaining, which both castellation features will remain intact. The IOMNHAS and the PRBO argue that a loss of feature of any kind is against the strategic policy and the proposal should be refused.
- 6.7 The principle test mentioned in 6.2 is clear, even if the proposal is not detrimental, it will still need to protect or enhance the Registered Building and its surroundings. The proposal here, however, replaces an existing important feature with a new feature, which has been established in 6.5 that has no historical establishment. Replacement with a new feature can neither be categorised as protect nor enhance the existing building and is therefore failed the principle test.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal does not accord with the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Guide to the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, it is recommended for an refusal.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 (As Amended), the following are automatically interested persons:

- o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
- o Manx National Heritage, and
- o The local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The Decision-maker must determine whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 02.10.2020 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

## 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.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/30860-braddan-harold-tower-extension-roof/documents/1113366*