Report to Council of Ministers

Report To The Council Of Ministers ### Applications By Mr Karl Meier For Planning Approval \& Registered Building Consent For Alterations \& Conversion Of Building Into A Restaurant/Cafe At Guard House, Unit 258, Jurby Industrial Estate, Jurby, Isle Of Man Case References: DF13/0031 \& DF13/0033<br>Application Nos.: 13/91082/GB \& 13/01083/CON ### Introduction 1. The applications relate to land/premises in which the Department of Infrastructure has an interest because it is the site owner. Consequently, the application has been referred to the Council of Ministers for determination pursuant to Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013. I have been appointed to consider the application and to make this report. I inspected the site on 4 December 2013. This report provides brief descriptions of the site/building and of the proposal, summaries of the main points made in an "additional statement" provided as part of the applications and in a planning statement and subsequent letter (dated 16 December 2013) from the Department. Details of representations received relating to the proposal are also referred to. The report continues with my assessment, conclusions and recommendations. ### The Site And Surroundings And The Proposed Development 2. The site comprises the Guard House which is Unit 258 on the Jurby Industrial Estate. The building is a registered building. The Estate was formerly Jurby Airfield, and the Guard House is a relic from the former use of the land as an airfield during the Second World War. The building is situated centrally within the Estate. It is a single storey structure. Its main section has a rectangular footprint, just over 30 m long by about 5.5 m wide, with a ridged roof along the long dimension and terminating in gable ends. Part way along the rear (south) elevation there is a projecting section some 3 m wide which extends from the main part of the building by about 4.7 m . This section has a ridged roof at right angles to the main roof and terminates in a gable end, which incorporates a brick chimney stack that served the boiler house. The chimney rises about 5.3 m above the ridge of the roof. The building is open to view from the A14 road across intervening areas of mown grassland, where it is seen against the background of a large industrial shed-type building. It lies to the south west of the A14, and is set back from that road by about . The site incorporates a concrete surfaced road, which leaves the A14 at right angles to provide access, and an irregularly shaped curtilage around the building which includes concrete and stone surfaced areas on the north and north east sides. 3. Alterations are proposed to the Guard House and conversion for use as a restaurant/café. The proposed works include replacement of some of the timber shiplap boarding (referred to as "Chiplap" on the application drawings) which forms the external walls of the building. In the first instance it is intended that selected reclaimed panels held in the central storehouse on the site would be used. The front (north) elevation would be repainted to reflect the existing colours on that part of the building, and the side gable elevations would be painted to match. The external roof covering would remain as it is. Other external alterations would include: - refurbishment of the 2 existing doors in the front elevation; - removal of a pair of double doors in the rear elevation, which are not original features of the building, and filling of the gap in the wall with shiplap boarding to match the existing walling; - provision of 2 extractor flues on the rear elevation; - retention of the existing windows where these are in good condition, and replacement of decayed windows using reclaimed windows from the central storehouse; - glazing of 2 windows in the rear elevation with obscure glass (windows serving male WC); - 3 roof vents on the north facing roof slope would be inspected, cleaned and painted with protective paint (these works are to be undertaken by the Department rather than the applicant). 4. It is proposed to utilise the existing access from the A14. The drawings show the provision of 9 parking spaces, although correspondence indicates that the spaces would not be demarcated on the ground and that the parking area would remain informal. ## Additional Statement With The Applications The main points made in the additional statement which accompanied the applications are: 5. The building is a timber frame structure built by the Air Ministry post-1935. It consists of external timber cladding and a roof of asbestos cement sheeting. Internally there are some timber stud plasterboard partition walls. It is proposed to convert the vacant building into a restaurant/café. All external features would be maintained and any decayed timber would be replaced on a like for like basis, to be painted using the same colours as existing. 6. The existing internal layout would be altered. The existing urinals are to be maintained within the men's toilets. All internal walls and ceilings will be upgraded to Building Regulations requirements, including insulation. All service connections will be to existing manholes at the rear. Two extractor fans will be installed on the rear wall to serve the kitchen, but will not be higher than the eaves. 7. The applicant will take a 21 year lease and will invest a substantial sum to revive this iconic building. Although it is dilapidated and is not of architectural merit, it is of historical significance. The building will be maintained during the lease. The proposed internal layout would be easily removable to reinstate the original layout. ### Planning Statement The main points made in the Department of Infrastructure's Statement are: 8. The Guard House is part of the original Second World War airfield constructed in 1938-9, which was used as a bomber training station. It is Registered Building 237. It is a sectional hut of a standard prefabricated design known as a Type A hut; being timber framed with peg foundations, external cladding of cedar rebated weather-boarding, and roofs of boarded timber with an outer cladding of corrugated asbestos sheeting. The functions performed by the Guard House are explained in the Registered Building Confirmation, which also relates to other buildings on the former airfield. (Inspector's Note: I have placed a copy of this document on the appeal file.) 9. The proposals have been subject of detailed negotiations with the planning and conservation officers. The latest drawings were submitted to respond to issues identified in the negotiations which included: - all existing points of access should be retained except the non-original double doors at the rear; - if replacement doors are required they should match the existing doors; - all existing windows should be retained; any necessary replacements should be of the same size; although some windows (to be confirmed) could be blanked out internally; - the existing internal office window panes and the original electrical panel unit should be retained; - internal changes should be reversible and not harm the original structure/fabric of the building; - the colour scheme should reflect the original 1930's scheme still evident on the front elevation; Case Refs. DF13/0031 \& DF13/0033 Application Nos. 13/91082/GB \& 13/01083/CON Page 2 - the 3 galvanised metal roof flues should be retained and repaired/refurbished; - the timber cladding should be repaired/replaced where decayed, utilising original panels held in store - replacement of panels must be balanced against the need to retain as much of the original building as possible, and patching with individual sections of timber should be avoided; - the Department of Infrastructure is to take responsibility for maintaining the cement fibre roof panels which are mostly in a serviceable condition; - angle iron which braces the chimney is not to be changed except in consultation with the Planning Authority; - existing urinals are to be retained and refurbished before considering replacement. 10. The site's planning history comprises planning and registered building consent approvals in 2010 for replacement of the asbestos sheet roof and rainwater goods (PA10/01765/GB & PA10/01766/CON). 11. The site is zoned as Airfield by the Isle of Man Development Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") are Strategic Policies 2 and 4, General Policies 1 and 3, Environment Policies 32 and 33, Business Policy 11 and Transport Policy 7. Policies RB/3, RB/4 and RB/5 from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) are also relevant. 12. There are considered to be 4 relevant main issues. One of these is also the main issue in consideration of the application for registered building consent. This is the effect of the proposals on the architectural and historic qualities of the registered building. The other 3 issues are: - whether the site is a suitable location in principle for a restaurant/café; - the effect on the character and appearance of the area; - the suitability of the access and parking arrangements. 13. Five conditions are suggested if the applications are approved. These include an additional condition detailed in the Department's letter of 16 December 2013 which supplements its earlier statement. #### Responses To Consultations 14. The Highways Division does not oppose the proposal. Jurby Parish Commissioners have no objections. 15. Manx National Heritage ("MNH") welcomes the applicant's intention to safeguard the wellbeing of this building through a long-term lease. It is noted that the proposal involves removal of several internal partitions that demarcated some of the most important/significant spaces in the guard house. Whilst not opposed to the proposal, MNH recommend that a record is made of the arrangement of the partitions before their removal. MNH are of the view that it is the building as a whole, particularly its overall form and exterior appearance and finish, which is of most significance. #### Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions 16. I concur with the Department of Infrastructure's assessment of the main issues which apply in the determination of these applications, as detailed in paragraph 12 above. The first relates to both applications and concerns the effect on the architectural and historic qualities of this registered building. Information in the Registered Building Confirmation document indicates that this building was intended to have a life of about 15 years. It has now been in existence for over 70 years, and as a mainly timber structure of that age it is not surprising that it shows some signs of decay which are likely to limit the period of its continued existence unless remedial works are undertaken. The building is vacant, and appears to have been unused for many years. The proposal has the considerable benefit of finding a Case Refs. DF13/0031 & DF13/0033 Application Nos. 13/91082/GB & 13/01083/CON Page 3 beneficial and potentially viable use for it, which would be likely to secure its immediate future. The external changes proposed are limited, and largely comprise works of restoration and repair, including repainting in appropriate colours to reflect those used historically. The limited external alterations, such as the insertion of 2 extractor flues on the rear elevation, would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the appearance of the building. 17. The proposals would result in the loss in part of the historic layout of the accommodation, including the removal of partitions which enclosed the detention and general detention rooms. However, those partitions are already incomplete, and their loss would not be apparent in the external views currently available to the general public. Furthermore, Manx National Heritage has indicated that it is the building as a whole, with particular reference to its overall form and exterior appearance and finish, which is of most significance. With respect to the interior of the building MNH has only recommended that a record should be made of the arrangement of the partitions before their removal. 18. There is nothing in the documentation to suggest that, if the current proposals for this building are rejected, there is any reasonable likelihood of an alternative proposal coming forward which would achieve an alternative beneficial use for the building, and similar repair and restoration of its exterior, while also allowing retention of the internal partitioning. In these circumstances, I feel bound to conclude that the proposal would not have any significantly detrimental implications for the architectural and historic qualities of this registered building. On the contrary, the proposal would be likely to be beneficial in securing the refurbishment and future retention of the building, which it is desirable to achieve due particularly to the historical significance of the building. 19. As the proposal would serve to protect the fabric and setting of this registered building, and the alterations would not have any significantly detrimental effects on its character as a building of architectural or historic interest, on this first issue I have identified no conflict with Strategic Policy 4 or Environment Policies 32 and 33 of the Strategic Plan. For similar reasons, and bearing in mind that the proposed changes to the building are compatible with being the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use, I have found no material conflicts with Policies RB/3, RB/4 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. 20. On the second issue, the proposal is not in strict accordance with the site's zoning as Airfield in the 1982 Development Order, but that zoning is mainly of historic significance as the site is in reality now part of an industrial estate. Whilst General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan places restrictions on development outside areas which are zoned for development, the exceptions in that policy include the conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest. Although the cross reference given to Housing Policy 11 is indicative that this exception is primarily intended to facilitate conversions to residential purposes, the application scheme accords with the spirit of that exception, particularly as Environment Policy 16 facilitates the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use. With respect to those policies, this building is redundant for its original use, is of architectural, historic or social interest, substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation, and served by existing services. The proposal would use the same materials as those in the existing building. It would result in the preservation of the fabric of the building. The proposed use would be accommodated without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character, there would be no unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation, and the proposal would not be of a scale that would prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services. Consequently, the proposal complies with those aspects of Housing Policy 11 which do not relate specifically to residential conversions, and with the terms of Environment Policy. Case Refs. DF13/0031 & DF13/0033 Application Nos. 13/91082/GB & 13/01083/CON Page 4 16. It is also relevant that the intended use as a restaurant/cafe would be compatible with, and potentially complementary to, the mix of uses nearby, which includes various industrial, warehousing and other commercial uses. 21. Bearing all those matters in mind, I have concluded that the site is suitable in principle for a restaurant/cafe. I have identified no material conflicts on this issue with the Strategic Plan policies cited by the Department, including Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 16. 22. On the third issue, the proposal would serve to preserve the appearance of the building and to enhance it through the repair/renovation and repainting aspects of the scheme. It is intended to tidy the existing bushes at the front of the building. The surroundings of the building would be largely unaffected by the proposal, save for an indication on the submitted site plan that an area to the north of the building would be covered with gravel to provide part of the parking and turning space provision. That area is in the main already roughly surfaced with loose stone. Consequently, the proposal would serve to enhance the appearance of the area. Given the existing mix of uses in the area, the proposed introduction of a restaurant/cafe would have no material implications for the character of the area. I have concluded that no significant harm would be caused to either the character or appearance of the area. With reference to Strategic Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, the repair/renovation works would serve to protect and enhance the landscape quality of the area. 23. In the absence of any objections from the Highways Division, and noting that the access road from the A14 is wide enough for 2 cars to pass and that there would be sufficient space within the site for cars to turn, it is my assessment that the proposal provides satisfactory access arrangements. No reference has been made in the papers before me to any relevant parking standards for restaurants/cafés, and there is no specific standard for those uses in the table in paragraph A7.6 of the Strategic Plan. However, having regard to the fact that the proposed internal layout drawing shows 32 covers at 9 tables, the provision of 9 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan should be sufficient. In addition, having regard to the intention to have an informal parking arrangement, the gravelled area to the north of the building would offer the potential for more cars to be parked without unduly disrupting vehicle movements. I have concluded that suitable parking arrangements would be provided. With respect to parking considerations, I have identified no material conflict with Strategic Plan Transport Policy 7. 24. I have reached the overall conclusion that the proposals are acceptable in planning and registered building terms. I intend to recommend that planning approval and registered building consent be granted. I have found the conditions suggested by the Department in its statements and in its supplementary letter of 16 December 2013 to be reasonable and necessary, although suggested condition C4, relating to restrictions on the use of the parking and turning areas, is relevant only to the grant of planning approval and not to the registered building consent. I have made some amendments to the wording of the suggested conditions, in the interests of clarity and precision. RECOMMENDATIONS 25. I recommend that planning approval and registered building consent be granted for alterations & conversion of building into a restaurant/cafe at Guard House, Unit 258, Jurby Industrial Estate, Jurby, Isle of Man. I also recommend that the following 4 conditions should be attached to both the planning approval and the registered building consent: 1. The works hereby approved must be undertaken within 4 years of the date of this approval. 2. Except as provided for by condition 4 below, the works hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans, drawings and information: the Location Plan Case Refs. DF13/0031 & DF13/0033 Application Nos. 13/91082/GB & 13/01083/CON Page 5 and Drawing No. PD-008 (Proposed Drainage Layout), both received on 10 September 2013; and Drawing Nos. PD-002A (Proposed Site Plan), PD-003D (Existing & Proposed Plans & Sections A-A, B-B), PD-004B (Existing Elevations) and PD-005B (Proposed Elevations), all received on 25 November 2013, and PD-007A (Section A-A), received on 28 November 2013. 3. The replacement of any fabric or features, including external weatherboarding, internal and external glazing, internal and external doors, and sanitary ware, shall not be undertaken without prior written approval from the Planning Authority. 4. Notwithstanding the details given on Drawing No. PD-007A received on 28 November 2013, including in particular Note 25 on that drawing, there shall be no replacement of any of the existing glazing in the building (including glazing in the external windows, in the glazed screen to the office and in the office door) without the prior written approval of the planning authority. I further recommend that the following additional condition should be attached to the planning approval: 5. The parking and turning areas shown on the approved plans shall not be used other than for the parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the restaurant/café and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector Case Refs. DF13/0031 & DF13/0033 Application Nos. 13/91082/GB & 13/01083/CON Page 6