d03f4472-b24c-4545-8c4c-d08288259241

22

ISLEOFMANEXAMINER BUILDINGS AT RISK

www.iomtoday.co.im Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Heritage has to be a core social and economic asset

I n thefirst part of this article, which featured in the Examiner two weeks ago, we suggest- ed three questions that shouldbe asked of all the candidates standing for the House of Keys in the forth- comingGeneral Election: l If elected, whatwill youdo to keep the island ‘A special place to live andwork’? l Whatwill youdo to look after our environment – natural andbuilt – as once destroyed it is gone for ever? l ‘There is a danger thatwe allow inappropriate building development anddemoli- tion’ –what are you going to do to prevent this? To quoteAlistair Ramsay again: ‘Heritage has to be rec- ognised as a core social and economic asset, not a quaint side show.’ This is somethingwhich must be stressedby all with thewellbeing of the island at heart. Thisweek, wewould like to explainwhywe suggested these questions, and also ex- plainhowwe can all play our part to keep the island ‘ASpe- cial Place to Live andWork’. the Isle ofManNatural History andAntiquarian Society continue a look at whether current planning policy is really safeguard- ing the island as that ‘Spe- cial Place to Live andWork’ that the current govern- ment has pledged itwill remain. With theGeneral Election imminent, FrankCowin and PatriciaNewton of

TheproposedDouglasHeadConservationArea – consultationclosesSeptember 17

DavidWertheim/CharlesGuardand inset JonWornham/islandimages.im

INTERESTED PARTY STATUS Interestedparty status will always be limitedbut shouldnot be as restricted as it now is; however this does not stop anyonewriting in to state their views. Indeed, if you, as amem- ber of the public, don’t like the designof a proposed development particularly in the treatment of architecture of historic/traditional build- ings, it is important towrite in to say so regardless of whether or not you think you may get status in the event of an appeal.

elsewhere’.

Organisations like IoM- NHASknowthey are not the only ones interested in such matters, but planning offic- ers and the planning com- mittee don’t knowunless they aremade aware of the greater outside interest of the general public. Unless concerns aremore widely aired, a decision fa- vouring the applicant regard- less of the quality of design proposed, is likely. Developers shouldnot be allowed to say ‘if I don’t get myway I can takemy busi- ness / investment /money

Contrary to submissions to the planning reviewcon- sultation,MNHhas been given the role of being the only heritage bodywhichhas the right to take a planning decision to appeal - but only if they submit a comment on the application in thefirst place. MNH is limited in staff and funding to adequate- ly carry out its role in this regard. Consequently this leaves a greater responsi- bility on volunteer heritage organisations such as IoMN- HAS / IoMVictorianSociety and the general public. FINANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE If youbuy anoldbuilding you shouldbe prepared to maintain its slate roof, stone/ renderedwalls and timber windows anddoorswhich all add to its character. There is not a presump- tive right to expect to be able to replace slateswith artifi- cial tiles, stonewithpebble dash, timberwithUPVC. All thiswas incorporated into a Planning Policy State-

ment PPS1/01 twenty years ago. What happened to the principles contained in this milestone document sup- portedby the thenGovern- ment?Why are developers includingGovernment de- partments not being forced to complywith its policies? Many olderManx build- ings have limited foun- dations anddamp-proof course, but this shouldnot be allowed to be used as an excuse for demolition. Funding is needed to aid specialist repairs and reten- tionof historic features es- peciallywhendevelopment must be seen to be carbon neutral. Taking heed of traditional Manx design andmaterials is being sold out to the percep- tion that heritage buildings are not and cannot bemade carbon friendly. The fact that demolition of heritage assets involves emissionof carbon stored in buildings, the use of carbon generatingmachinery toun- dertake the demolition and removal of resultant heap of

Currently heritage is beingmade the sacrificial scapegoat by aGovernment that is prepared to be black- mailedby such arguments regardless of a taxation schemewhichmakes it easy for developers/entrepre- neurs to legally avoidpaying heavy taxes and contributing to theManx coffers. Aproposed redevel- opment atMearyVoar approvedby planning com- mittee is a notable case on filewhere such an argument was openly pursued to ena- ble destructionof a substan- tial heritage building. More recentlyMinisters openly favoureddemolition of aRegisteredbuilding in Ramsey prior to determina- tionof the applicationon the ‘understanding’ theywould get jobs in a newbuilding, re- gardless of the latter’s design thenunknown and regard- less of the fact their technical advisers includingManxNa- tional Heritage said the exist- ing heritage building could be incorporated sensitively into a newdevelopment.

PropertiesonDouglasHead

Photo: CharlesGuard