A plan to convert Port St Mary’s Victorian railway station building and goods shed to offices has been refused by the planning committee.
The proposal (16/00535/B) was submitted on Haven Homes’ behalf by Hugh Logan Architects (HLA) who argued alternative use is needed to secure the buildings’ future.
They said the proposal was ‘sympathetic to the history of the buildings’. A total of 26 parking spaces are proposed, clustered around and between the buildings.
The Isle of Man Steam Railway Supporters’ Association were concerned that, with the loss of the waiting room and ladies’ toilet, the facilities left for users of the railway were insufficient.
They said the alterations to the goods shed are out of keeping and should be retained for railway-related uses. They were also concerned at the extent and visual impact of car parking proposed.
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society said the buildings are worthy of registration and even without that formal status they believe that the buildings are worthy of sensitive care to protect their environmental context.
They were also concerned about the level of car parking which will separate the two buildings, which have a functional connection.
They criticised 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 unsustainable’ and consider it ‘virtually impossible to guarantee’ the retention of the track internally and externally relating to the shed.
They argued that the building should be considered for registration first before the application was considered.
Port St Mary commissioners also said, while they supported the proposal, it should not derail the registration of the buildings. The authority did not want the station to mirror the marine biological station in Port Erin, which has been derelict – despite development bids – for 10 years.
Planning officer Sarah Corlett recommended the proposal be approved. The notion of an alternative use of the building as offices had been accepted in a previous application.
The applicant believes that even if the buildings were registered, the proposal would accord with the relevant policies for that. Also none of the work was irreversible and the buildings could be reverted to their original purposes. Visually it ‘is considered not to detract from the overall character of the building’.
Regarding car parking, when compared with other railway stations, they argued ‘the appearance of vehicles around the station is not considered to be either out of keeping or inappropriate.’
They added 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’.
However, the planning committee said it was ‘not persuaded’ the station buildings were redundant for their original purposes and their conversion ‘may adversely affect the operation of the railway or result in the need for the construction of additional unwarranted buildings’.
Waiting room space is inadequate for users of the railway, they said, adding that car parking would visually separate the two buildings, which have ‘an operational and historical association’.
The committee said registration should be decided first to provide ‘clarity’ on decisions regarding any application.
If the plan was approved, any work undertaken could ‘harm’ registration.
HLA has appealed against the decision.