**Document:** SPMC&E Objection Letter **Application:** 06/00617/B — Installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to side elevation **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2006-06-30 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** consultation / representation **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/80681-lezayre-3-west-quay-windows-replacement/documents/1469623 --- # SPMC&E Objection Letter ## Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment [Table omitted in markdown export] FOUNDED 1938 REGD. CHARITY (IOM) No.391 PATRON: HIS EXCELLENCY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN CHARLES FLYNN 31,FIRST AVENUE DOUGLAS HON. SECRETARY MRS. M.B. CRELLIN CRONK ny GREINEY, GLASHEN CLOSE, BALLASALLA, MALEW ON PLANNING ISSUES PLEASE REPLY TO: S.P.M.C.& E c/o Glebe Cottage, Maughold, (via Ramsey) IM7 1AS Phone 815748 Email: iankbleasdale@manx.net Secretary to the Planning Committee, Department of Planning & the Environment, Murray House, DOUGLAS Dear Ms. Callow, SPMC&E VIEWS ON APPLICATIONS from WEEKLY LIST 2006/15 List dated 20/04/06 As sent Date of this response 23//04/06 Dealing with an earlier application for this barn, 97/0811 submitted by a Mr & Mrs Pardoe, we said: From the photograph supplied this seems a reasonably sound stone barn range on a site where its maintenance will be visually important. Therefore we will accept the principle of conversion providing the usual criteria are complied with. Thus the existing stonework must be capable of being retained and all must be contained within the shell of the existing stone building (i.e. excluding the unsightly brick end additions), must not be rendered over and must reasonably respect the existing door and window openings. We are not sure from the photographs what the existing roof covering is but in anycase it must ultimately be nothing less than reclaimed Welsh slate. It must be appreciated that only a relatively small and modest cottage will result. Some restriction on future P.D. rights might be appropriate. The Approval, when granted, seemed to follow these recommendations, including the point of it being only a modest dwelling. On 99/1022 we did not comment, assuming that the same policies would apply and it was only accidentally that the Society came into the picture when an Appeal was lodged. To say that we were appalled, is an understatement. Luckily the Society was given Interested Party status in the Appeal and I submitted a draft statement which included, inter-alia, the following:- 5. Our case must essentially rely on Planning Circular 3/89 which sets out, quite clearly, the Planning Policy on the RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. Though old, I have no information to suggest that it has been superceeded. (Though it may be reinforced by the Island Strategic Plan, of which I have only DRAFT copies). Para 4 is the most appropriate and even the strictures of this are narrowed down somewhat by the wording of the Conditions applied to Approval to 97/0811, the relevant A-i-P. The words "it is unlikely that any approval will be granted to any extension of the building" must surely mean something? 6 We really are both amazed and severely disappointed to find that the Planning Committee have apparently approved these plans in defiance of their own Policies and that it has fallen to a neighbour to take action to try and bring some since into the situation. 7 The precedents inherent in the approval of such vast extensions, are devastating! Unfortunately the appeal was withdrawn before the hearing. (I never discovered who lodged it?) Now we are faced with further amendments which transgress the Policies set down in Circular 3/89, even more violently! The approved plans have allowed an almost 100% footprint extension, in its length; plus another 100% footprint extension in its width (admitably to the rear and, apart from the quite large Conservatory, partly underground.) The new plans confirm these increases but now seeks to transgress that other principle edict of Circ 3/89 which seeks to limit and preserve the exiting window and door openings in any barn being converted. This development has already driven a coach & horses through the Planning Authorities own Policy and the Society is concerned that the precedent thus set will negate the use of this Policy on other sites in the future. THESE FURTHER TRANGRESSIONS MUST BE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO. [Table omitted in markdown export] FOUNDED 1938 REGD. CHARITY (IOM) No.391 PATRON: HIS EXCELLENCY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN CHARLES FLYNN 31,FIRST AVENUE DOUGLAS HON. SECRETARY MRS. M.B. CRELLIN CRONK ny GREINEY, GLASHEN CLOSE, BALLASALLA, MALEW ON PLANNING ISSUES PLEASE REPLY TO: S.P.M.C.& E c/o Glebe Cottage, Maughold, (via Ramsey) IM7 1AS Phone 815748 Email: iankbleasdale@manx.net This seems to be a repeat of 05/0092 on which we wrote a follows: This land is well outside any residential zoning on the Glen Vine inset (Fig 9) in the Western Sector Plan and lies within a Nature Conservation Zone etc. Pending any future definition of a Village Envelope for Glen Vine, the Society STRONGLY OBJECTS to any development thereon. It is also AHLV. That application was Refused and we see no reason to alter that decision as the land has not been re-zoned in the interim. The Society continues to STRONGLY OBJECT. [Table omitted in markdown export] 9 Elms, 1 Sycamore and 2 Ash. All very big, established trees, important, along with others on the site, in the overall landscape. Hardstanding has been established between and around other large trees in this compound and we fail to see the pressing need to fell these whilst leaving the others. The SOCIETY VERY STRONGLY OBJECTS TO THE FELLING OF THESE SUBSTANTIAL TREES. Elms are under threat from other sources and sound specimens need to be protected. We would like to see T.P.O. protection applied. [Table omitted in markdown export] These two applications are somewhat mixed-up and I don't think all the right documents are complete in each file. However enough detail remains to indicate that the existing windows are not original and are quite un-sympathetic to this ex. Warehouse building. Unfortunately the proposed replacements are also un-sympathetic in different ways. Those to be used on the Post Office Lane frontage, in being plain, single-pane types, might just be acceptable but those on the Harbour frontage need a more appropriate design. Other warehouse and ex-warehouse building in Ramsey can offer examples which could be followed and we are not convinced that sliding sashes would be inappropriate. The Society OBJECTS to the present scheme.. Copied to file ...423... Plotted on Map yes... Yours sincerely, Ian K. Bleasdale MRICS.,DipTP.,DipLI. Honorary Planning Officer. --- *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/80681-lezayre-3-west-quay-windows-replacement/documents/1469623*