**Document:** Groudle Glen De-Registration Statement **Application:** 19/00510/CON — Application for the de-registration of the former Groudle Glen Hotel (19/00287/REGBLD) in accordance with 7(1)(a) of the (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2019-10-15 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/29879-braddan-former-groudle-glen/documents/1332039 --- # Groudle Glen De-Registration Statement 1. The former Groudle Glen Hotel on King Edward Road, Onchan, ("the Building") was included on the Protected Buildings Register ("the Register") on 16 April 2019. That registration process followed the process specified by Regulation 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 ("the Regulations"). In the course of that process the owner of the Building ("the Owner") made representations to the Department to the effect that the Building should not be registered. The building was Registered because of its Historic Interest due to its association with the development of Groudle Glen and through this with its association with the Island's 19th century tourist industry. 2. This application is presented by the Owner in accordance with Regulation 7 (1)(a) of the Regulations and seeks de-registration of the Building. 3. The wider context of this application is that prior to registration the Owner made an application for planning permission to demolish the Building and re-develop the site (Application PA 18/01300/A), which instigated the investigation into registering the Building, initially through a number of representations claiming the Building to be a Baillie Scott building. 4. With regards to its application to seek de-registration of the Building, the Owner would now draw to the Department's attention the following factors: 5. As noted at paragraph 3 above, originally the Department's basis for considering registering the Building was based on the surmise that it is "attributable" to M.H. Baillie Scott. However as there is in fact no documentary evidence to substantiate this connection, as acknowledged in its entry in the Protected Buildings Register, the basis of registration has now shifted to the Building being one of "historic interest" due to its age and rarity and its relationship and association with the developing tourist industry in the 19th century and the development of Groudle Glen in relation to that tourist industry context, without any prior notice to the Owner. 6. As previously noted to the Department, the Building is redundant because its use as a hotel, a public house and more recently, a restaurant, have become non-viable. The Building has been on the market for sale for 5 years, without the slightest hint of interest. Interest in visiting the Building may have "peaked" in the late 1970s, however the changes in the drink driving laws sounded a death knell for local interest in visiting the Building and this interest never recovered. Similarly, due to changing market conditions in the tourist industry, the tourist industry has experienced a marked decline, and off island visitor numbers are not sufficient to make the Building viable and it has therefore now become a white elephant. For an historic building to take a meaningful place in modern times it needs to remain relevant and have a viable use, unfortunately this is not the case with this Building. 7. Historically, there have been problems in finding a buyer for the Building due to the archaic situation surrounding the drainage system which currently serves it and 3 other surrounding properties. No-one wants to take this on, not the Government, not Onchan Commissioners, not the owners of the surrounding properties nor prospective purchasers. When the Building was last on the market for sale in 2007 / 2008, three successive prospective purchasers pulled out following the submission of offers to buy, all due to the onerous nature of the drainage covenants attached to the Building. If the Building remains on the Register, the chances of finding a buyer will be reduced to nil and this death sentence for the Building can only result in further decay to it and a blighting of the surrounding area. 8. The Building has suffered multiple cruel disfigurements over the last 100 years or so, both internally and externally. So much so it is difficult to see that anything of the original remains in a sufficiently good condition to warrant preserving it. Almost all external and internal walls have been tampered with, many windows have been replaced and any "originals" remaining have either had very poor quality repairs carried out to them in the past or are in a state of advanced decay. The Building requires substantial financial investment for refurbishment, likely to be a seven figure sum. I simply do not have the means for this and this is also likely to be out of the reach of most people other than experienced investors who undoubtedly would expect a return on their investment. The Building remaining on the Register will condemn it to becoming a museum piece only, and not a very good exhibit at that, and therefore unlikely to attract private sector investors. Would the Department like to make an offer? In my earlier submission to the Department dated 26 February 2019 I invited the decision making parties to come and review the internal condition of the property, but the offer was not taken up at that time. I would now repeat that invitation. 9. If the Department wanted to have the Building placed on the Register, why is it only intervening now? The Department and the Government should have shown more interest in the Building 40 years ago. The Building was not listed during this time, what has changed? The Department of Planning have accepted that the Building as it stands does not work and hence in 2013 allowed an application to switch to multiple residential use, despite proposed significant structural changes. On further investigation this option proved to be non-viable. It is clear that the Building is long past its best, its usefulness in its current form and its relevance. Its remaining on the Register will not change any of these factors, its removal would allow consideration of crucial redevelopment of the site. 10. If the Department has placed the Building on the Register due to links to the development of Groudle Glen and the tourist industry, then why only this Building? Surely also the waterwheel in the glen should be listed and also the area around Sea Lion Rocks. 11. Whilst the Groudle area is a truly beautiful part of the island what it needs is for new life to be breathed into it. It is time to move on. The Groudle Glen Hotel building remaining on the Register will not assist in this. The tourist industry, even allowing for the interest in the Electric Railway, is not sufficient to sustain an interest in this Building. The days of the 19th and early to mid 20th century tourist industry are sadly long gone. The private sector will not invest in this "history" and the Building has no future unless Government is prepared to step in, purchase the building and invest in it to restore it to its "former glory" and run it as part of "Manx National Heritage". 12. As the Department has not published the report on which its decision to Register the Building was made, it is not known to what extent the Department had regard to the representations made by the Owner. Nor is it apparent how the Department arrived at its conclusion that the Building is of historic interest due to its age and rarity. Therefore the Owner is unable to provide comments on the Departments observations. 13. It is the Owner's submission that (a) the Building does not have any special historic interest due to its age and rarity; (b) that the Building is in a poor condition particularly with regards to the interior and is beyond economic refurbishment; (c) due to the level of deterioration, that the Building does not contribute to its current setting at the side of Groudle Glen; and (d) the continued registration of the Building acts as a serious impediment to the beneficial development of the Building, the adjoining site and the improvement of the area in general. In the event that the Building were to be demolished the Owner would undertake to maintain a record of the Building and the part it played in the development of the area. 14. For the foregoing reasons the Owner respectfully submits that, on the basis of a full consideration of the relevant issues, the Building should be removed from the Register. --- *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/29879-braddan-former-groudle-glen/documents/1332039*