DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00814/B Applicant: Mrs Sharon Kaighin Proposal: Insertion of access gate into rear wall of property (amendment to PA 23/00246/B; in association with 24/91113/CON) Site Address: 10 Albert Street Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1JF Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.10.2024 _________________________________________________________________

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

N 1. Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. The applicant should be aware of and comply with the clause above.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposed new walling with pedestrian gate is acceptable in terms of their form, mass, finish and design to an existing residential property and as such complies with the relevant planning policies outlined having no adverse impact upon public or private amenities.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 25.09.2024. _______________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection Local Authority - No Objection DOI Drainage - No Objection

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties NOT should be given the Right to Appeal because: 8 Albert Street, Ramsey - No objection, support the application. ___________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of 10 Albert Street, Ramsey, which consists of a two storey mid terraced traditional property. The property is to the northern side of Albert Street and to the south of a car park which is accessed off Water Street, both to the north. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement rear wall with a height of 2m, which is similar in size compared to the existing wall which is in a very poor state of repair and needs placing. The proposal would be constructed of blockwork with a painted render finish. A new pedestrian gate is proposed to be installed. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The previous applications on the site are considered to be material to the assessment of this application:

3.2 Registered Building Consent for demolition aspects to 24/00814/B - 24/01113/CON PENDING CONSIDERATION - 3.3 Erection of a replacement rear wall - 23/00246/B - APPROVED - 3.4 Registered Building consent for demolition elements to PA 23/00246/B - 23/00247/CON

- APPROVED PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as within an area "predominately residential" on the Ramsey Local Plan. The site (rear wall is on boundary) is within a Conservation Area.

4.2 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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

4.3 Environment 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.'

4.4 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):

"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...

• 7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to:

• o the condition of the building;
• o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
• o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

4.5 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." - 4.6 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man)

"POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

• o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.

• o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits
• of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

4.9 Residential Design Guide 2021 - 4.10 It is relevant to note Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be found in full online;

5.2 Highway Services have considered (26.09.2024); "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposals are similar to previously approved in application 23/00246/B." - 5.3 Ramsey Commissioners have no objection (17.10.2024). - 5.4 DOI Drainage comment (21.10.2024): "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: Applicant should be aware of and comply with the clause above." - 5.5 The owner/occpier of 8 Albert Street, Ramsey supports the applicaiton (27.09.2024). ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• - Statutory test
• - Character and appearance 6.2 CONSERVATION AREA STATUTORY TEST

• 6.2.1 Prior to the assessment elements of this application, it is necessary to apply the Conservation Area statutory test as referenced in section 4.4 of this assessment on whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
• 6.2.2 The rear wall is in a state of disrepair and needs to be demolished according to the applicants. This has also previously been accepted (see planning history). The proposed would be a wall of similar size, albeit change from Manx stone (poor quality) with painted render. This finishes is found in the surrounding area. The proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the Area. The proposal also includes a pedestrian gate. Again this a type of feature is common place to the rears boundary walls of terraces throughout the IOM and this raise no concerns.
• 6.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.3.1 As outlined previously, there are no concerns. CONCLUSION
• 7.1 The proposed new walling with pedestrian gate is acceptable in terms of their form, mass, finish and design to an existing residential property and as such complies with the relevant planning policies outlined having no adverse impact upon public or private amenities.
• 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

8.5 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 the Right to Appeal. _____________________________________________________________________

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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 23.10.2024 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.