Loading document...
The site represents the residential curtilage of an end of terraced house on the western side of Hope Street. The property was until recently rendered but the render has been hacked off and the stonework beneath has been revealed. The property has a long rear garden but the frontage is directly onto Hope Street as are the other properties in the streetscene.
The site lies within an area designated on the Castletown Local Plan as Residential and also within Castletown's Conservation Area.
Planning permission has been sought and granted:
Proposed is retrospective permission for the removal of the render and exposure of the stonework.
The owner of the adjacent property who was the applicant in the case of the application referred to below supports the application.
A similar proposal was considered for the adjoining property - PA 07/1746 and was refused for the reasons that "There is little if any evidence to suggest that the building was previously or originally finished in exposed or finished stone. As such, to fundamentally change the appearance of the building would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the building and the Conservation Area in which the property is situated and would neither preserve nor enhance the Area as is required in Planning Policy Statement 1/01."
The applicant for this latest application provides supporting information which explains that during the course of undertaking the works which have permission and general repair works, the existing render was revealed as being boxy and badly cracked and the stonework which was revealed on the gable was of poor quality so was rendered over but that on the front elevation was of better quality with certain features - stone lintel and straight joints below which could indicate that the frontage was previously stone faced.
I have considered the content of the application with particular consideration to Policy CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS of Conservation Areas as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
This is an application to regularise the works which have already taken place to remove the previously existing render to reveal the underlying stone. Of consideration, given the property's location within the Conservation Area, is what the predominant finish is to both that property and those in the immediate vicinity. The predominant character of the Conservation Area, particularly at the time that the Conservation Area was designated, was and is of rendered facades. Also of consideration is the condition and aesthetic appearance of the underlying stonework. In the instance of this part of the Conservation Area, the nature of the underlying stonework leaves me in little doubt that the building was meant to be rendered. The reason for this is that the construction of most of the stone buildings on the Island is in a random rubble format. That is, two 'skins' of stonework in- filled with rubble. To provide better protection against the weather and doubtless to indicate aesthetic trends, the outside elevations were rendered.
It is unusual for a building to actually be built on the Island with 'worked' stone as the intended finish to the façade. Examples of this are the Castle Mona on the Promenade and Talbot Chambers on Athol Street in Douglas. The stone in these properties was clearly intended to be seen as it is worked to a very uniform size and shape, in some cases indicating tooling. This was doubtless intended to signify the importance of both the building and its patrons as the stone in both cases was imported and therefore expensive. The properties on Hope Street are in the main, domestic and historically at least, of readily available local materials. The exception in Hope Street is further up the road from the application site, No 33, where the stonework is clearly meant to be seen as the finish. The stone cills are worked, as is the stonework over the head of the window which is clearly formed into a flat arch. The façade clearly mean to be seen in stonework.
The use of the local Limestone, which is laid down in 'beds', can lead to the natural stonework appearing to be 'coursed' but is in actual fact, a natural phenomenon often misunderstood. I am left in very little doubt that the houses within the area designated as a Conservation Area would historically have been rendered.
To conclude, the stripping off of render to reveal the stonework beneath is a modern trend and is in my opinion, detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. I therefore recommend refusal of these proposals.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The owner of number 9, Hope Street is adjacent to the site and is directly affected by the proposal and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 09.06.2008
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The stripping off of render to reveal the stonework beneath is a modern trend and is detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area where development must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the buildings and the area in accordance with Strategic Plan Environment Policy 35.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date : 10.16.2008
Signed : Mrs F Mullen Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
