**Document:** Officer Report
**Application:** 18/00781/B — Erection of a detached toilet block to be used in association with the existing Lezayre Church
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2018-09-18
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/11889-lezayre-church-churchtown-detached-toilet-block/documents/985745

---

# Officer Report

**Application No.:** 18/00781/B
**Applicant:** Mr Julian Edwards
**Proposal:** Erection of a detached toilet block to be used in association with the existing Lezayre Church
**Site Address:** Field 132150 Land Adjacent To Lezayre Church Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer
**Photo Taken:** 09.08.2018
**Site Visit:** 09.08.2018
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee
**Recommended Decision:** Permitted
**Date of Recommendation:** 10.09.2018 _________________________________________________________________

## 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

- C 2. The toilet block hereby approved shall not be occupied or used at any time other than for purposes incidental to the use of the Kirk Christ Lezayre Parochial Church (Registered Building No.138) as identified on the approved plan. Reason: To ensure proper control of the development site.
- C 3. The roof of the toilet block hereby approved shall be finished in natural slate and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the building and site in general, acknowledging its proximity to a Registered Building.

- C 4. The door of the toilet block hereby approved shall be constructed of natural timber and retained as such thereafter.

- Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the building and site in general, acknowledging its proximity to a Registered Building.
- C 5. All existing trees shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. Any retained tree(s), which within five years of the approved development being completed, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
- C 6. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management, submitted in support of the application, shall be adhered to in full. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
- C 7. The implementation of protective measures described in condition (6) shall be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist throughout the development. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

### Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 1 B, 2 and 1803K 01 all received on 25th July 2018.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons 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 6(4):

Churchtown Cottages, Churchtown, Ramsey as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them. _____________________________________________________________________________

### Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMEND FOR AN APPROVAL

## - 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is Field 132150 and some of the land surrounding Kirk Christ Lezayre Parochial Church and due south of Lezayre Road, Churchtown. Lezyare Church is Registered Building No.138. Edged blue on the submitted plan is the field separating the church's immediate grounds and Lezayre Road. - 1.2 The Registration document for Lezayre Church does not make it immediately clear as to the reason behind its Registration, although it appears to be primarily related to the age and interior of the church, rather than to its external physical qualities.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a toilet block within the southwest corner of the application site. The building's footprint would be 7m by 4.25m, with eaves and ridgeline 2.4m and 4.2m above ground level respectively. It would be constructed of blockwork and finished with painted render. Five windows (none of which would be in the gables) would be formed of glass blocks, two windows being timber framed, while the door would be timber. The roof would be finished in natural slate or similar. - 2.2 A supporting letter was submitted with a previous application for a similar scheme, which identifies that the toilet facilities are needed in order to enable events other than worship (such as art exhibitions and music concerts) to take place within the church, the future of which has for some years "been a cause for concern due to a falling congregation and the burdens on a limited number of increasingly elderly people of a large burial ground…and an increasingly onerous quota to pay". The letter also identifies that the capacity of the church is 210 people, with additional space at the rear. A further letter has been submitted as part of this new application which indicates that the alterations are to enable better level access and to be less damaging to the existing trees on the site.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 A very similar application for the erection of a detached toilet block to be used in association with the existing Lezayre Church - 15/00410/B - was approved. The only differences are the siting of the toilet now being closer to the Church and the design of the front (east elevation) has been altered slightly. - 3.2 A further application (PA 14/01404/A) was almost identical application (PA 14/01404/A) to PA 15/00410/B, but seeking Approval in Principle, for an identically-sized toilet block in the same location was withdrawn earlier in the year after advice given by officers. All matters save for siting were reserved, but an example floor plan and one example elevation were provided. The intention was for the toilet block to be used in conjunction with the church but since the church was out with the red line of the application site there did not seem to be any way to ensure the toilet block could be 'tied' to the church without a legal agreement. In view of the site's location within a countryside area, officers advised that the application seeking Approval in Principle should be withdrawn and a full application submitted in its place, either purely for the toilet block or also to include a proposed change of use to the church, which is understood to be a longer-term intention for the applicants/site.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site is situated with an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance according to the Isle of Man Development Scheme Order 1982. It is also identified as being within Private Woodland. - 4.2 There are no policies that specifically apply to the kind of development proposed and,

- as such, several policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan are considered appropriate to consider. These are set out below.

4.3 General Policy 1: 'The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations.' - 4.4 General Policy 3: 'Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

- (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
- (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
- (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
- (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
- (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
- (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
- (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
- (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.'

4.5 Environment Policy 1: 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.' - 4.6 Environment Policy 2: 'The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

- (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
- (b) the location for the development is essential.'

4.7 Environment Policy 32: '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.' It must be noted that the proposed works would be limited to land alongside a Registered Building rather than to a Registered Building. With this in mind, it is also appropriate to be mindful of two specific policies within Planning Policy Statement 1/01 'Conservation of the Historic Environment', which contains policies relating to applications for Registered Building Consent (Policies RB/3 and RB/5). - 4.8 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)."
- 4.9 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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners unanimously support the application (07.09.2018) - 5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (23.08.2018):

"The proposal is an amendment to the previous 15/00410/B planning approval and seeks permission to relocate the toilet block on the site. The application states it would serve exhibitions and events held at the church. Planning condition no. 2 of the previous 15/00410/B planning consent prevents the proposed facility from being used for any other purpose than to serve the church. It is requested that this condition is attached to the current application which should prevent any increase in site traffic and parking demand.

Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following condition: The toilet block hereby approved shall not be occupied or used at any time other than for purposes incidental to the use of the Kirk Christ Lezayre Parochial Church (Registered Building No.138) as identified on the approved plan.

Reason: to limit the site traffic and parking demand."

5.3 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (14.08.2018):

"Firstly, in should be noted that, in relation to the impact on trees, the previous (and current) approval at this site will set the context for my comments to the planning authority. The impact of the new proposal will be compared against the impact of implementing the current approval. From the draft plans and sketches you have shown me today it is clear that, whilst not ideal, the new proposal is likely to have less of an impact on the trees than the currently approved siting/design."

And "I don't have any objections to this proposal but I would ask that you consider applying the following conditions to the approval:

- (1) All existing trees shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. Any retained tree(s), which within five years of the approved development being completed, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
- (2) The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management, submitted in support of the application, shall be adhered to in full.
- (3) The implementation of protective measures described in condition (2) shall be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist throughout the development. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree

protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified tree specialist being submitted to the Department."

5.4 The owner/occupier of Churchtown Cottages, Churchtown, Ramsey; due to illness we seek a deferral for the Commissioners to make comments; previous application (15/00410/B) indicated that the site was not within 8m of a watercourse but it is due to stream which runs on our land next to boundary wall; seek exact date when ownership or lease of Church was transferred; and invite architect and applicant to visit their property. Further comments have been received to the application which can be summarised as (10.09.18): no objection to the re-siting of the new application but object to the original siting (15/00410/B), along with the reasoning , rationale and sentiments expressed by the previous Case Officer; comments on a number of issues in relation to the previous application ; in relation to the current application their comment include; proposal is located closer to and in view of the church; windows of toilets (west) will be clearly viewed from our property and this elevation has not had the same aesthetics enhancement compared to the front elevation; we have discussed the design issues with the applicants and also possible landscaping be planted which we would like to revisit; seek clarification of what measures (use of church) will be enforced to ensure that gatherings

- at our boundaries are kept to a minimum and seek assurances that patrons do not congregate on the roadway nest to our property or at the entrance to the venue; concern of parking in relation to the overall use of site; and comment in relation to the venue use and monitoring of activity.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 There is significant material planning consideration given to the extant approval which exists on this site for a very similar toilet block, albeit located closer to the Church building, further away from the western boundary of the site. - 6.2 When the previous Planning Officer considered the previous application he made the following comments in relation to need/principle of the development and in design terms of the building in the setting it would site, which area again considered relevant in this current application. These comments where:

"6.2 The stated need for the toilet facilities relates to the potential diversification of events the church offers and these could in themselves require a change of use planning approval. There is something of a "chicken and egg" issue here in that there could be an argument for objecting to the proposal on grounds of a lack of firmly established need relative to the provisions of the Development Plan, against the possible objection to the change of use of the church to include other, non-worship events. Equally, however, it is also understood that the church currently has no toilet facilities, and this is unusual and unfortunate.

6.3 It is possible to tie the use of the toilet block to the church itself via Planning condition; any change of use that may be subsequently approved on the site would not conflict with such a condition. - 6.4 While it is evident that the proposal does not fit neatly within any of the exceptions to General Policy 3, it is considered that the harm that would result from the siting proposed would be limited. The site is sheltered from many sides by trees and buildings, and any new building here would only be apparent from Churchtown Road rather than Lezayre Road due to the number of trees surrounding what is a quite secluded and distinctly separate parcel of land from, and adjacent to, the church. - 6.5 It is considered that an objection to this application on these grounds would be inappropriate since the harm that would arise from the erection of a building to provide toilet facilities here would be outweighed by the positive benefit realised by having on-site toilet facilities for this existing community facility, even if it is currently unused and may be subject to a change at some point in the future. It is further considered that the proposed building is

- well-considered in its design, is appropriately modest in scale and mass and uses appropriate materials. It would therefore not detrimentally affect the setting of the Registered Building, which is as much provided by the land to the north and south than the application site itself.
- 6.6 In addition, an extension to the existing church - which, as noted, is Registered - could raise more concern than a new, standalone building simply because of the difficulty that exists in terms of achieving an appropriate design without harming a Registered Building. While there is by no means an in-principle objection to the extension or alteration of Registered Buildings, churches generally take on a specific form and structure such that alterations can be difficult to successfully accommodate, and especially so when the building is Registered, when even internal changes can be challenging.
- 6.7 It is noted that the toilet block would sit north of a dwelling and be fairly close to it. However, this has one window directly overlooking it, and at a slight angle, and with the screening around could not be said to result in any undue impact on the living conditions of those living there in terms of how the proposed building would be used. While there would be some additional comings and goings in this area over and above what is currently the case, the size of the church (able to accommodate roughly 210 people, it is understood) is such that these are unlikely to be of a scale or regularity likely to be detrimental to the amenities of the area.
- 6.8 It is concluded that the principle of the proposal, along with its design and proposed location, is acceptable. Conditions to limit the materials to be used to slate and timber for the roof and door respectively are recommended accordingly. Any changes to the size of windows or the installation of louvred panels could potentially require a new application (depending on the scale of any such differences that may occur) and so further comment on those matters is not necessary at this stage."

6.3 In terms of this new application the building would be located closer to the Church; however, its position, siting and design are all considered appropriate and would ensure the building appears as a subordinate building on the site, while providing and important facility for visitors of the site. The proposal is also beneficial to the mature trees on the site and therefore in turn to the appearance and character of the site and surrounding countryside setting. - 6.4 Again the new position of the building, which is further away from the neighbouring residential property Churchtown Cottages, is also beneficial to the residential amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact or overlooking) of the occupants, albeit still accepting the previous application did not raise any concerns either, albeit is was closer. The new proposal would be sited approximately 13m to the north/north-west of the gable elevation of Churchtown Cottages. Comments made by the occupants of Churchtown Cottages that essentially the rear elevation in terms of design is not of the same quality to match that of the front of the building is not disagreed with. However, it should be understood the primary appearance of a building is the public viewable elevation of any building, hence why in this case the front elevation does have a more interesting appearance, as this is the main publically viewable elevation. However, the rear elevation is not unattractive, it is plainer in appearance, but it is not considered unacceptable.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated within this report it is therefore recommended that the application is approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;

- (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
- (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
- (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
- (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

- o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
- o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 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 Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…17.09.2018

Signed :………C BALMER……….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

## 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/11889-lezayre-church-churchtown-detached-toilet-block/documents/985745*