Officer Condition Discharge Memo

Department Of Infrastructure ### Memorandum To: Miss Jennifer Chance, Head of Development Control, or Mr Michael Gallagher, Director of Planning & Building Control From: Mr Edmond Riley, Planning Officer Subject: Condition Discharge Date: 12th January 2015 --- Re: 14/00891/GB and 14/00892/CON: Railway Station, Banks Circus, Douglas The above two applications were submitted with a view to obtaining planning approval and Registered Building Consent for various works and alterations to the above building, both internally and externally: the main elements were the creation of an outdoor canopy and new internal mezzanine floorspace. A retail area would also be introduced beneath this mezzanine flooring. When the applications were submitted, the Planning & Building Control Directorate sat within the Department of Infrastructure, which also owned (and still owns) the application site. As such, the application fell for assessment by an independent Planning Inspector, whose recommendation to approve the application was accepted by the Council of Ministers. Some identical conditions requiring the submission of further details were attached to both decision notices; the relevant conditions read as follows: - "No works shall commence until large scale details (minimum 1:20, preferably 1:10) of the restaurant mezzanine, balustrading, the proposed door and screen between the restaurant and the proposed staircase, the glazed screen and associated side doors between the ticket hall and the retail area and details of both proposed staircases including the balustrading have been submitted to and approved in writing by Planning & Building Control. The works shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved plans." - "No works shall commence until large scale details (minimum 1:20, preferably 1:10) of the proposed canopy have been submitted to and approved in writing by Planning & Building Control. The works shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details." - "No works shall commence until a full and comprehensive photographic survey has been submitted to and agreed in writing by Planning & Building Control." In addition, the following conditions were attached solely to the issued Registered Building Consent: - "The ticket windows, panelling and original map on the north wall of the ticket hall shall be retained in positions as near to their current positions as possible. No works shall commence until details to a scale of 1:10 indicating the new door opening through the wall, the position of the map and the revised panelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by Planning and Building Control." - "The new mezzanine floor shall be kept a minimum of 1.4m away from the north wall of the ticket hall except for the mezzanine floor narrow link to the restaurant at its western end. No works shall commence until details to a scale of 1:1- have been submitted to and agreed in writing by Planning & Building Control." A data stick containing some 201 photographs has been supplied. In addition to this, a schedule outlining the location of each of those photographs along with an accompanying internal site layout showing the location and directions each was taken has been provided. Taken together, these pieces of information are considered sufficient on which to discharge this condition on both the applications. In terms of the details sought by the remaining conditions, these have now been provided, along with a detail showing the appearance of the mezzanine reflected ceiling. Although an example of the mezzanine reflected ceiling has not been provided, the annotation is clear that the modular access system installed will have an invisible grid. This would retain the ‘cleanness’ of the finish and design aesthetic of the overall mezzanine flooring, and is therefore considered acceptable. A scale of 1:10 for some of the details might have been preferable, as indicated in the condition, while also many of those details might have been preferred drawn in both plan and elevation / section as well. However, the drawings provided are clear and accurate, and cross-referencing between them is possible and enables full understanding of the internal arrangements, and also the external canopy, proposed. There does not appear to be any significant conflict between the submitted details and the Inspector’s Report regarding the merits of the scheme. Two clear points regarding the position of the mezzanine floor (required by the Inspector to be 1.4m from the north wall) and the existing train map (required by the Inspector to be as close as possible to its existing position) are considered to be adequately addressed. The mezzanine floor is kept narrow at the point it joins the north wall, while the map is proposed to be moved 770mm away from its current position and the ticket window 910mm from its current position. A minimum of original wall panelling would be lost, while two sets of double doors atop one another would be proportionally and aesthetically agreeable. These arrangements are considered acceptable in preserving the views of the most important features of architectural and historic interest, and also allowing a wider appreciation of the original ticket hall floorspace within the building, both of which were notable concerns of the Inspector and representatives (paragraphs 59-63 and 67-73 of the Inspector’s Report set out the key points). In view of the above, it is recommended that all the conditions on the planning approval notice and Registered Building Consent notice be discharged. Signed Edmond Riley Planning Officer Signed Jennifer Chance Head of Development Control Signed Date Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control