Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00535/B Applicant: Haven Homes Ltd Proposal: Conversion of existing station and good shed buildings to provide office accommodation with associated parking Site Address: Port St Mary Railway Station Station Road Port St. Mary Isle of Man IM9 5LF Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 22.06.2016 Site Visit: 22.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
1.1 The site is the curtilage of Port St. Mary Railway Station and associated goods shed all situated to the west of Station Road and immediately south of the railway line and platform. To the south of the site is a lane which serves the Station Hotel public house, Ballaghreiney - a private dwelling with associated horticultural storage depot and to the west of that is the site of a former gas works which has planning approval for redevelopment for residential purposes: this site is within the ownership of the applicant. - 1.2 The site is approximately 260m to the north of the main part of Port St. Mary village (the primary school). - 1.3 Port St. Mary Railway Station is a handsome building which dates back to 1898, and retains many of its original features although it has not been particularly well maintained in recent years. The building is mainly finished in brick with attractive detailing on the chimneys and yellow coloured brick window heads and some yellow brick banding. The building has a striking white painted projecting gable on the eastern end of the southern side and another on the western end of the northern elevation, with decorated and detailed fascia boarding. The building originally had a leanto roofed porch on the southern elevation and more recently a brown brick single storey addition has appeared on the eastern gable. Other changes include the replacement of timberwork on the western gable of one of the single storey projections towards the platform, with brown brick, the filling in in timber of longer windows on the platform-side and the filling in of previously open waiting area on the western side of this annex. - 1.4 The building has not been actively used, other than by people waiting for the train in very recent years, the building having been used as a hostel between 1980 and 1989 and those associated with the operation of the railway were housed in a temporary timber building on the platform which has since been removed. When the station became unmanned in 2014, the staff who had been relocated to within the building, were no longer needed to be present on site and the building has remained unused since then. - 1.5 Planning approval has been granted for the conversion of the building to residential and tourist accommodation and the refurbishment of the waiting room area (PAs 07/00372/B and 11/00180/B). Neither of these schemes was implemented.
1.5 The goods shed lies to the west of the station and is a plainer building with grey stone and red brick banding external walls. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the building to an office. The scheme involves internal and external changes to the buildings as well as changes to the external space where car parking is to be provided.
2.2 The building is to be changed in a way which the applicant feels is a reinstatement of former features of interest whilst preserving the existing features of importance. It is also intended to introduce wheelchair suitable access. - 2.3 The platform side elevation is to have its timber long windows reinstated and the formerly open waiting area which has been bricked up with brown coloured bricks is to be replaced with timber and glazing but retaining the vertical timber sectional details to hint at where the supports to the open waiting area once were. There is to be a lean-to roofed covered waiting area at the western end of the elevation which has timber sides painted to match the existing. - 2.4 New windows are to be introduced in the western section of the southern elevation with some windows being replaced. The most significant change here is the introduction of a frameless glass box style lobby. - 2.5 The goods shed is to be retained as is with existing shuttered openings having windows installed with the shutters retained. - 2.6 Car parking is to be introduced on the southern side of the building in the form of 26 spaces including four wider spaces suitable for disabled persons arranged between and behind the existing buildings. The parking area is to be fenced off from the platform by original style fencing. The existing parking at the eastern end of the site is to be retained for use by railway patrons. Landscaping may be introduced in this area following discussions with Isle of Man Railways. The parking spaces will be formed in paviors.
3.1 The site is identified on APS as Railway. The building is acknowledged as being of sufficient interest to warrant consideration for Registration in this document although the proposed Conservation Area for the village does not extend as far as the railway station or adjacent buildings. The railway is also referred to in the following parts of the Plan:
3.2 The Strategic Plan contains the following guidance which is relevant to the railway:
5.14 The routes of the Steam, Electric and Mountain Railways form part of the ISS. The Steam and Electric Railways have potential for improvement in the longer term as part of an Integrated Transport Strategy for the Island. All of the current routes support the strategy of CENTRES and LINKS.
Transport Policy 3: New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes.
4.1 In addition to the two previous applications referred to in paragraph 1.5 above, the site was also subject to a more recent application for conversion of the building to an office (PA 14/00177B). This was referred to an inspector and ultimately Council of Ministers for a decision as, at that time the site was owned by Department of Infrastructure which was also the Department in which the Planning Authority sat and was refused. The reason for refusal related to the car parking provision only that area at the eastern part of the site (5 spaces) - which was considered inadequate and which would have led to vehicles being parking on the highway, to the detriment of highway safety and traffic flow.
4.2 The inspector also commented that "the available evidence suggests that the whole of the station building is no longer required for railway purposes, given that successive applications have been made for alternative uses of parts of the building…the proposal provides for the retention of sufficient facilities to allow the station to continue to operate, including waiting rooms, ticket office and toilets, and does not affect the tracks or the station platform. In these circumstances, I find no basis on which it could be concluded that the designation of the site as Railway in the Area Plan should be an impediment to approval of these of much of the building as offices" (paragraph 13).
4.3 He notes the requirement for out of town offices to have one parking space per 15 sq m of nett office space and compares this with 264 sq m of floor space which would require 17 or 18 parking spaces. He also notes that there is no provision within the application for parking for railway patrons and difficulties in manoeuvring within the parking area to the east of the buildings. - 4.4 The goods shed and station building are currently proposed for Registration - references 15/00282/REGBLD and 15/00281/REGBLD.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services raise no objection subject to conditions:
5.2 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Wildlife Division notes that the application does not mention wildlife issues and they are aware of bats utilising the grounds, from the survey of the adjacent site. They recommend that a survey is undertaken for bat and bird issues (14.06.16).
5.3 Port St. Mary Commissioners express concern about the number of cars which will be emerging out on to the main road and query whether the goods shed is truly redundant. They feel that the registration process should be completed before any application is determined and consider that the proposed waiting facilities are inadequate. They welcome the sensitive redevelopment of the station but do not consider what is proposed achieves this (23.06.16). - 5.4 A resident of Stanley View in Peel expresses concern at the loss of the station facilities and feels that the provision of the required car parking will have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area (13.06.16). - 5.5 The owner of Knock-e-Dhooney in Andreas objects to specific elements of the scheme as well as the principle of considering the application ahead of consideration for Registration. He considers that the building and conservation of the steam railway are matters of national importance. He suggests that the goods shed is not redundant and is an operational railway asset. He considers that the proposals to introduce car parking between the goods shed and main building will physically separate the two and the buildings may end up looking as if they have been placed within a car park. If the good shed is to be converted then the existing openings should not be altered. He is not supportive of the proposed glass porch and glazed platform frontage (16.06.16). - 5.6 The Chairman of the Isle of Man Steam Railway Supporters' Association seeks interested person status on behalf of the Association and whilst they support finding a good use for the building, they area concerned that the facilities left for users of the railway are insufficient with the loss of the waiting roofm and ladies toilet. They consider that the alterations to the goods shed are out of keeping. They are also concerned at the extent of car parking proposed in terms of the visual impact and consider that the goods shed should be retained for railway-related uses which would also reduce the number of car parking spaces required (14.06.16). - 5.7 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society confirm that they were consulted on the potential registration of the building in 2015 but provided no response but they are of the view that the buildings are worthy of registration and even without formal status they believe that the buildings are worthy of sensitive care to protect their environmental context. They too comment on a "sea of car parking" which will visually separate the two buildings which have a functional connection, and comment adversely on the retention of the flat roof extension to the building and the addition of the shelter. They consider that the waiting facilities and toilets should be incorporated in the existing main building. They criticise the Department for "stalling" the registration process in favour of this proposal and believe that the change of use of the goods shed is short-sighted and unsistainable and consider it virtually impossible to guarantee the retention of the track internally and externally in respect of this building. They firmly believe that the building should be considered for Registration first before this application is considered (01.07.16).
6.1 The alternative use of the railway station has been accepted in previous applications, not only those which approved alternative use of the building as residential or tourist accommodation, but also the most recent application for office use accepted that the use was acceptable per se albeit that the parking provision was not. The inclusion of the goods shed in the current application is not considered to affect this conclusion. As such, the issues here are whether there is sufficient space remaining for users of the railway, whether there is sufficient car parking available for both users of the railway and those using the buildings as offices and secondly, whether the proposed physical changes to the building are acceptable and are sympathetic to a building which is acknowledged as being of historical and architectural interest.
6.2 Whilst there are objections from third parties regarding the redundancy of the station, it is relevant that the Department who owns the building is also that which operates the railway and is making the building available for conversion as proposed without restriction. As such, it is accepted that the building is redundant or will be, for railway purposes.
6.3 The applicant makes the point that whilst the buildings are being proposed for Registration, there was neither Registration nor any Building Preservation Notice in place at the time of submission of the planning application (nor is there now) and the applicant believes that even if the buildings were Registered, the proposal accords with the relevant policies for that. They also stress that none of the works is irreversible and if the buildings were again required for its original purposes, this could be undertaken: even the existing rails and platforms are to be retained. They confirm that the parking proposals accord with the requirements set out by ht in pre-application submissions, and respond to the previous reasons for refusal. It is also relevant that the building was identified as suitable for consideration for Registration when the earlier application for conversion to offices was considered and it was not suggested or accepted at that time that the application should be deferred pending completion of the Registration consideration process.
6.4 The buildings are clearly of acknowledged and obvious architectural and historical importance and it is critical that what is proposed does not change the character of the buildings as railway structures and it is welcome that the changes are not irreversible. Whether completely new features should be introduced, such as the glazed entrance feature on the rear, is a matter of opinion and subjective judgement: in other cases, such as Tynwald Mills, glazing has been added which was not original, to enable better and more economical use of the buildings but where this is considered complimentary to the character and appearance of the existing buildings. What is proposed is simple, will enable the original building to be visible behind it and is considered not to detract from the overall character of the building.
6.5 Whilst there is also criticism of the amount and layout of car parking, it is interesting to consider the context of the various railway stations on the Island: Douglas station has a hard surfaced car park to its front and more car parking to the side: similarly, Port Erin station has car and bus parking to one side and the public highway to the other. Ballasalla Station is similarly laid out and Castletown too. As such, the appearance of vehicles around the station is not considered to be either out of keeping or inappropriate. Even if it were, it is relevant to consider this against the need to find a use for the building which will ensure its future maintenance and in particular, the comments of the previous inspector in respect of that application for office use. - 6.6 In summary, whilst some of the proposed changes to the building, in particular the glazed porch feature may appear a little different from the rest of the building, it is considered that the scheme in the main restores previously spoiled features and will find a use for a building which is in danger of falling further into disrepair and neglect. Whilst it would be ideal if the building were used primarily as a railway station with perhaps tourist accommodation above and beside, this is not what is proposed and it should also be remembered that one of the stations on the route has been changed to a private dwelling which has secured the maintenance and use of the building but which has separated this from the railway in use terms and now lacks the activity of people going in and out of the building, as would be the case if it were used as a railway station. Whilst the people coming and going will not be railway patrons, they will potentially support the nearby public house and even the village facilities, which are within easy walking distance on a reasonable day. - 6.7 The application is recommended for approval.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Wildlife Division is within the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owner of Stanley View, Peel and The owner of Knock-y-Dhooney, Andreas who are not directly affected by the proposal due to the distance from their property
Similarly the IOM Steam Railway Supporters' Association and The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, whilst having an interest, are not directly affected by the proposal in terms of the impacts set out in the Government Circular and as such should not be afforded interested person status.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 18th July, 2016 for the reasons that:
The Planning Committee is not persuaded that the goods shed and all of the main railway station building are redundant for their original purposes and such, their conversion to and use for another purpose may adversely affect the operation of the railway or result in the need for the construction of additional unwarranted buildings, contrary to Transport Policy 3.
There is inadequate provision for users of the railway in terms of waiting room space, which will adversely affect the operation of and attractiveness of the railway, contrary to Transport Policy 3.
The introduction of car parking as proposed between the goods shed and the main railway building would visually separate the two buildings which have an operational and historical association, to the detriment of the setting of both buildings which are of historical importance.
They also wished for a note to be attached to express concern at the lack of progress on the Registration of the goods shed and railway station building which was instigated in 2015 and which provides a lack of clarity on the status of the building and the appropriate policies which may be applied to them.
The Committee also afforded interested person status to the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society and the Isle of Man Steam Railway Supporters' Association.
the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
This approval relates to drawings 1405-000, 1405-002, 1405-003D, 1405-004E, 1405-010 and 1405011D all received on 12th May, 2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See supplementary report above
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown