Loading document...
Application No.: 14/01145/GB Applicant: Our Lady Star Of The Seas And St. Maughold Proposal: Erection of a conservatory to replace existing to rear elevation (In association with 14/01146/CON) Site Address: Our Lady Star Of The Seas And St Maughold Queens Promenade Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1BH Case Officer : Mr S Moore Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is Our Lady Star of the Seas and St. Maughold Church, Queens Promenade, Ramsey. The site is an impressive church, a Registered Building (Number 080). The building is a Manx stone church of significant design, unique to the Island. - 1.2 The site is on the promenade. It is rectangular in shape with the main entrance and frontage onto the South Promenade. The building extends deep into the site on its southern side. The building is 'L' shaped and comprises both a place of worship and a presbytery. There is a private garden at the rear enclosed by a high stone boundary wall. - 1.3 The south side of the site has a frontage with Dale Street. At the rear is Mona Street. There are neighbouring dwellings siding onto the site to the north. - 1.4 The site is situated within the Ramsey Conservation Area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a conservatory to replace existing to rear elevation (in association with 14/01146/CON). The conservatory is a lean-to design, constructed in PVC framing materials with rendered 'dwarf' wall. It would have a depth of
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Relevant planning history is summarised below.
13/00641/CON and 13/00640/GB - the Planning Authority is currently considering an associated application for planning approval for the same conservatory. The reason for refusal was:
"The proposed conservatory, by reason of its size, form and design, would be detrimental to the architectural and historic qualities of the church, a registered building. The conservatory would be of an excessive size which would subsume the rear elevation of the church and would mask and compete with a number of important architectural and historic features. It would incorporate the historic single storey annex to its detriment. The timber clad box element which links the glazed framing with the rear elevation would appear bulky and clumsy. The use of timber cladding would also introduce an unnecessary additional material which would visually compete with the other materials used elsewhere in the scheme and which feature in the existing building. The horizontal off-set framing bars on the side elevation of the conservatory would give the side a cluttered and busy appearance when simple lines would be preferable. There are no details of rainwater goods and there would be a risk of water ingress into the registered building, particularly from the flat roofed box element. Furthermore, there are no details of the floor slabs on which the conservatory would stand. The submitted drawings do not accurately show the detailing and features in the existing building or how the conservatory would impact on them. There is insufficient justification for the design of the conservatory or demonstration that it would respect the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building. Having regard to the above criticisms, the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environmental Policies 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007; and Policies RB/5 and RB/10 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01."
12/01346/CON and 12/01345/GB - planning approval and Registered Building Consent refused earlier this year for the erection of a rear conservatory. The reason for refusal was:
'The proposed conservatory fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Registered Building or the Conservation Area within which it is located. As such, the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Environment Policy 32 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In addition, the proposed use of uPVC is inappropriate and detrimental to the character and appearance of the building, contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 34 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development is not suitably justified and that it would have significantly harmful impact upon a Registered Building of considerable note.'
3.2 There are various other previous approvals for works to the building, none of which are considered directly relevant to the current application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The area is identified as being within the Town Centre (mixed use) by the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. - 4.2 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are considered relevant. 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.'
Environment Policy 34 states: 'In the maintenance, alteration or extensions of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.'
Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, contains four policies that are also considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Policy RB/3: General criteria applied in considering Registered Building applications, states: 'The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:
'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.'
Policy RB/10: Ecclesiastical buildings, states:
'The same provisions apply for registered buildings which fall within this category, as apply elsewhere. Contrary to the situation which prevails elsewhere, no exemption exists with respect to ecclesiastical buildings in the Isle of Man.
In considering applications for registered building consent for alteration or extension to buildings in this category, it is acknowledged that factors such as the size and requirements of modern congregations may differ considerably from when the church was originally constructed. Applicants considering carrying out alterations, extensions or improvements to ecclesiastical buildings which are registered, should consider the extent to which their proposals will affect the particular historic merit or architectural character of the building in question. An application is less likely to succeed if either of these qualities is markedly affected.
It must also be remembered that in addition to the requirement for registered building consent, it will usually be necessary to obtain the formal consent of the appropriate church
authority: early dialogue can often assist in deciding upon the most appropriate way to progress such works.'
5.1 The Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposals. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Historical background
The church was designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, the grandson of George Gilbert Scott, who was appointed in 1907 to design a new church and presbytery for Ramsey. The foundation stone was laid on August 3rd 1909 and the church officially opened in August 1910. Sir Giles was born in 1880 and educated at Beaumont College. He is best known for his prize-winning design of 1903 for the new Anglican cathedral in Liverpool. Although consecrated in 1924, the building was not completed until the 1980s. Other designs of Scott's include the new Bodleian Library at Oxford (1936), Bankside Power Station (now the Tate Modern art gallery) the Battersea Power Station (1927), and the new Waterloo Bridge (1939). He was also involved in rebuilding the Palace of Westminster after damage done during World War II and was the designer of the famous British red telephone box, an example of which is located in the rear garden of the church.
6.2 Background to the application
The application follows a further refusal of planning approval and registered building consent of the 13/00641/CON and 13/00640/GB applications for a larger and different designed rear conservatory. It is understood that the current application follows dialogue between the applicant, Planning Officer and Assistant Conservation Officer following its submission.
The following is the basis of an email sent to the applicant on the 19th December 2013 in an attempt to aid the process and set out what might be acceptable.
"Further to our site meeting yesterday afternoon, I've attached a sketch drawing that we have produced which illustrates the footprint of the conservatory extension that we feel might have potential (my emphasis) and is worth exploring further.
As we discussed, we have particular issues with the conservatory extending into the recess because of 1) potential water egress issues; and 2) that it would subsume the whole rear elevation of the building to the severe detriment of the character and appearance of the building. The conservatory also needs to be kept away from the historic single storey extension in order to preserve its setting, hence our suggested positioning on the sketch plan.
We also strongly advocate a contemporary design; modern, light weight with large areas of glazing. This would clearly read as a light weight and more transparent addition to the main building, and would not compete with the original building in the way that the more robust and sturdy latest design does. We suggest powder coated aluminium or untreated cedar for the framing. The design of the roof will need to be very carefully considered and should not interfere with the first floor windows (the top of the roof should be kept lower than the bottom sills of the first floor windows). The design should ensure no water egress back into the original building and this will need be sufficiently detailed when the plans are taken forward.
We suggest that you commission a few different design options in sketch form so that we can understand the basic concept for each option. You can then present them to us for comment.
Do get in touch should you require any clarification of the above. It should be noted that the sketch layout that we have provided with this email is only approximate and has only been tabled to give you an idea of what we feel might work, but won't know for sure until the design has been drawn up."
6.3 The area formed to the rear of the Presbytery and the church is a quiet space bounded by a relatively high random rubble, stone wall and fairly private. Access may be gained to the rear of the church onto Mona Street to the rear. - 6.4 The effect of the proposal on the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building:
7.1 It is recommended that the application is refused.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested, as their comments have been deemed material and Ramsey Town Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation:
28.11.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
R . The proposed conservatory, by reason of its size, form and design, would be detrimental to the architectural and historic qualities of the church, a registered building. The conservatory would be of an excessive size which would subsume the rear elevation of the church and would mask and compete with a number of important architectural and historic features. There are no details of rainwater goods and there would be a risk of water ingress into the registered building. The submitted drawings do not accurately show the detailing and features in the existing building or how the conservatory would impact on them. There is insufficient justification for the design of the conservatory or demonstration that it would respect the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building. Having regard to the above criticisms, the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007; and Policies RB/5 and RB/10 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : Jennifer Chance Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
