Loading document...
The Ballure Church, Walpole Drive, Ramsey is a single storey detached pitched roofed property which is located on a corner plot with Walpole Drive to the north and Ballure Road to the east of the site.
The property has been zoned under the Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement (Planning Circular 2/99) as being within the area of Ballure (3.10).
The site is not within a Conservation Area; however is a Registered Building (Nr 90).
The Department’s policies in relation to such buildings are set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01. Those policies of particular relevance in this instance are:-
RB/3: General Criteria Applied in Considering Registered Building Applications
The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-
RB/5: Alterations and Extensions
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 affect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence.
Policy R/E/P5 Registered Buildings – Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement
Planning Circular 1/98 - The Alteration and Replacement of Windows
Conversion of redundant church into private dwelling (02/02458/GB) – approved
The application proposes the installation of two clear leaded windows to replace missing and damaged stained glass windows within the north elevation, the installation of two conservation style roof lights to the south elevation and alterations to the porch which include installation of two conservation style roof lights and introduction of porch windows (in association with 06/01358/CON).
The Ramsey Commissioners have objected on the following grounds:-
The Commissioners consider that the retrospective application for the replacement of the original stained glass windows within the Ballure Church with clear glass is not appropriate, particularly as the application site is a Registered Building.
The original planning approval for the change of use of the Church to a dwelling house required the retention of the existing stained glass windows and the Commissioners are of the opinion that such requirement should be enforced.
Highways Division do not oppose
S.P.M.C. & E:-
Seems the best-case scenario in the circumstances. Support.
MCS Anne Craine, Member of the House of Keys for Ramsey- objects on the following grounds:
We have also received a number of privately written representations commenting to the application:-
The Ramsey Heritage Trust - Marine Gardens, Ramsey - have stated they wish to see the windows to be replaced with duplicates, as the originals are well documented.
The Laurels, Beaumont Road, Ramsey - has made a detailed account of the recent history of the site and has objected to the changes to the stain glass windows to clear glass.
Fearnan, Walpole Drive, Ramsey - have objected to the alterations to the stain glass windows and the windows should be replaced as near as possible to the original forthwith.
Lea Grange, 10 Ballure Grove, Ramsey, have objected to the clear glass windows being installed, contrary to Planning Conditions.
16 Ballure Grove, Ramsey - have objected that the part of the original permission that these windows would be retained and is such an abuse of Planning permission to seek this inappropriate form of replacement.
Fern Cliff House, North Shore Road, Ramsey - all the stain glass windows should be retained, which was laid down in the original planning permission.
8 Ballure Grove, Ramsey - object to the replacement of the old windows with clear glass.
Perrins, Walpole Drive, Ramsey - whilst not objecting to the replacement, is surprised that the windows have deteriorated in the few months since visiting the church in March 2006.
Cooil Rea, Walpole Drive, Ramsey - The owner of the property had the responsibility to protect these windows and he should be made to replace the windows with the same design.
Corony Mill House, Corony Bridge, Maughold - objects and that the original windows should be installed at the owners own cost.
Dormer House, Walpole Drive, Ramsey – similar stained glass window should be installed, as accepted by the owner due to the original planning condition.
12 Killeaba Mount, Ramsey – the retrospective application to use clear glass is not acceptable, all of the stained glass windows should be reinstated using existing photographic records.
Cornerstones, Walpole Drive, Ramsey – regardless of how the damage occurred the current owner should be made to replace the windows with new ones to the same design.
The previous application 02/02458/GB was for the Conversion of redundant church into private dwelling. This application allowed for the retention of the stained glass.
The retention of the stained glass windows has been the subject of much discussion between the applicant and this Department. I wrote to the applicant on the 19th November 2004 stating that:
“your Planning Approval relates to the retention of all stained glass windows with the exception of one number to be replaced with clear glass to the Living Room adjacent to the wall creating the W.C. Any deviation from this Approval will require both Planning and Registered Building Consent.”
The letter of the 19th November 2004 was followed up on the 31st May 2006 with a letter in which we outlined that we understood that some windows had been replaced with clear glazing. This application is a result of that letter.
We received a phone call to suggest that some of the stained glass had been removed. The assistant Conservation Officer was able to visit the site and photograph the building. At this time, there were some boarded up windows and one shows a window that had been almost completely smashed with the lancet section still intact.
The applicant suggests via the inclusion of a letter appended to the application from the glazing restorer, that the destruction of these windows is the result of vandalism. At no time during this process did the applicant, his agent or the glazier contact the Department to pass these concerns on and seek our advice. Through the correspondence issued by us relating to this building and our involvement with the applicant and his agent on another Registered Building on the Island, it should be clear that the works would have required registered building approval. I am therefore concerned at the lack of consultation regarding these works.
Turning to the addition of the roof lights and omission of the windows to the Entrance Porch to not give me cause for concern as I consider they have a minimal impact on the registered building.
The stained glass windows was very much a feature of this registered building and one which should not be lost. There appears to have been very little attempt to replace those lost.
Material Planning matters which need to be considered regarding this application include:-
Firstly the two conservation style roof lights within the roof of the south elevation and the two roof lights within the porch roof which are proposed to give additional natural light into the dwelling, would be acceptable in the proposed locations due to there size, position and design, and therefore would not cause any adverse impacts to the detriment of the Registered Building or to the surrounding area. Again the omission of two porch windows would again be acceptable.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
