Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90160/GB Applicant: Mr John-Paul Walker Proposal: Replacement of existing mortar cap to Clock Tower Belfry with lead roof (in association with RB consent application 25/00161/CON) Site Address: Castle Rushen The Quay Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LD Technical Officer: Tom Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.04.2025 _________________________________________________________________
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
It is judged that the proposal meets the tests of Section 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the registered building's special interest is being preserved and the character of the conservation area is being preserved. The proposals are also judged to meet the tests of Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 32 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Planning Policy Statement 1/01, as the registered building and conservation area is being protected and preserved. The proposals are also judged to meet the tests of General Policy 2 as the replacement roof would respect the site and its surrounding as well as causing no adverse impact to the character of the surrounding townscape. The application is therefore judged to be acceptable.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings P-006, P-007 and the other supporting information detailing the lead roof covering to the clock tower belfry, all received 17.2.2025.
Right to Appeal Right to Appeal: It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: D.O.I. Highways - No objection _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Castle Rushen, Registered Building no.24, is a large limestone fortress initially built around 1200AD. Manx National Heritage state in their information regarding the site that Castle Rushen is one of the best preserved medieval castles in the world. While originally used as a military fortress, the site has also been used as a royal residence, a mint, a prison and a courthouse. - 1.2 The works proposed under this application focus on the Clock Tower Belfry, the elevation and portion of the Castle Keep that overlooks Castletown's Market Square.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application proposes to replace the existing mortar cap to Clock Tower Belfry with a lead roof.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016
General Policy 2 Strategic Policy 4 Environment Policy 32
3.2 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
POLICY RB/3 POLICY RB/5 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 There have been various applications relating to the Castle since its date of registration, principally regarding amendments to improve its use as a heritage attraction. These include applications 24/00233/CON and 20/01296/CON that permitted the installation of a platform lift within the Outer Gatehouse from the former witness room, now part of the ticket office, at ground floor and the former courtroom at first floor. Before those works, applications 17/00857/GB and 17/00858/CON approved various alterations including the relocation of the visitor shop, replacement of the drawbridge, and a new ramp and steps to the ground floor of the Keep.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 6.1 DOI Highways - No Highways Interest (21.2.2025).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Statutory Tests - 7.1 Section 16 of the Act requires that when considering whether to grant registered building consent, the Department must "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." A supporting statement has been submitted with this application, outlining the rationale behind the proposed lead roof. This states that the current cement cap to the bell tower has failed and is resulting in high levels of water ingress to the fabric and rooms below. No evidence has been found of a historic masonry roof covering to the bell tower, and therefore it is likely that any historic roof was either formed in slate or lead, as it has been on other areas of the Castle. Given the research that has been undertaken and the obvious benefits that a weatherproof roof/capping will provide to the historic fabric below, I judge that the proposed lead roof will preserve the special interest of the building.
Section 18 of the Act requires the Department to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area in the exercise of any powers under the Act. In this instance, the application proposes to construct a lead roof over the bell tower, replacing a non-historic cement cap. Lead is a commonly used material for roofing in the conservation area, and on parts of the Castle itself, and together with the fact that this proposed roof would be modest in scale and placed at the top of one of the highest parts of the Castle keep, I judge that the proposed roof would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Policy Tests
7.2 The application proposes to construct a lead roof over the Castle's bell tower, replacing a non-historic cement cap. As noted in 7.1 above, information has been included within the application documents explaining the rationale behind the proposals. Given the roof is intended to protect the historic fabric below, is modest is scale and located high up on the Castle wall, it is judged that the proposals will respect the site and its surroundings, not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape, preserve and protect the special interest of the registered building, and preserve the character of the conservation area.
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 It is judged that the proposal meets the tests of Section 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the registered building's special interest is being preserved and the character of the conservation area is being preserved. The proposals are also judged to meet the tests of Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 32 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic
Plan 2016, and Planning Policy Statement 1/01, as the registered building and conservation area is being protected and preserved. The proposals are also judged to meet the tests of General Policy 2 as the replacement roof would respect the site and its surrounding as well as causing no adverse impact to the character of the surrounding townscape. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 9.1 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). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 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. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
9.5 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: 14.04.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown