NOTE THAT CLIFFORD AND I WE HAVE NOW DONE RESEARCH ON THE REGULATIONS WHICH SUPPOSEDLY UNDERLY THE PLANNING APPLICATION (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1495/pdfs/uksi_20041495_en.pdf )

The Harbour Master tells me that there is a second application in Portaferry for the same thing. Based on the regulations which date from 2004/5. After reviewing the regulations we see that they say that the following vessels are exempt.

(2) These Regulations do not apply to —
(a)    ships of war and troop ships;
(b)    cargo ships of less than 500 gross tonnage;
(c)    ships not propelled by mechanical means; (
d)    wooden ships of primitive build; (
e)    pleasure yachts not engaged in trade;
(f)    fishing vessels; and
(g)    vessels not engaged in commercial activities.

It is clear that these regulations apply to Strangford – there is therefore no basis for the planning application in Strangford – only Portaferry could be affected.

Harbour Masters is a capable local man who cares for the community.

Following some research and have discovered that the application is alleged to have been ‘forced’ on the local harbour master  by civil servants from London on the basis that there are 6 foreign boats a year on average that would need to be checked in Portaferry/Stranford that want to come a shore and do some tourism.

Apparently they are training the Harbour Master to figure out which are the terrorists and which are not and how to search boats and interview people who show up to be vetted in these enclosures  (seriously!)

I contend that they dont need 2 fenced off areas for the passengers of 6 visiting boats per annum with one in Portaferry and one in Strangford- one would do and the regulations do not apply to boats who dock in Strangford anyway.

Both ports are operated as a single port. There is only one harbour master for Portaferry and Strangford. We don’t need two holding areas as the Harbour Master can’t be in two ports at the one time. There are only six boats in total a year.

The secure area in Portaferry leaves loads of room for locals as it is well down the quay and will not inconvenience local people, but there is no space for a second one in Strangford. The one in Strangford blocks everything from fishing to launching small boats.

This is just silly bureaucracy masquerading as anti terrorism legislation. If there were really terrorists of bad guys, they would not be advising the Harbour Master of their arrival anyway.

Cllr Cadogan Enright, 07590462329

ps I am sorely tempted to run off a leaflet with a map on the back of it and tell people how to object – there are only 300 houses in Strangford – but need guideance from residents association – please advise

Letter of objection by Strangford Residents Association to planning application no R/2013/0252/F 12 ,The Quay , Strangford. Prepared by Clifford McClenaghan of  The  Bridge Studio 6 Kildare Street Strangford

INTRODUCTION

THE APPLICATION is made in ignorance of the real significance of Conservation Areas and  the protection of Listed Buildings, which is of course conserving  structures and built up areas as a record of Architectural and Historic significance; of artisanal and traditional building practices, of the buildings themselves, for the enjoyment of today’s and future  generations. This ‘enjoyment’  is not just of that visual but superficial nature;  rather, it  is much more profound, extending to understanding of historic, cultural and social trends, the development of technical capabilities  and forming the cornerstone of many educational programmes , all often referred to as ‘heritage’.

It is, important to bear in mind the fundamental aims and objectives (above) of the  Building Conservation.   One hopes that in its deliberations the Department remains alert to these aspects.

1.00 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

1.01 The location of the application is known as the New Quay, as outlined in the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet ( DOE NI September 1985).

It falls within the designated Conservation Area.

Article 50 (5) of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 requires that new development in a Conservation Area will ‘preserve or enhance’ the character and appearance of the area and at the very least do ‘no harm’.

1.02 PPS 6 Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building states

‘The Department will not normally permit development which would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building. Development proposals will normally only be considered appropriate where ALL the following criteria are met:

(a) the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment;

(b) the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building; and

(c) the nature of the proposed use respects the character of the setting of the building.

At 6.28 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

‘Where a listed building has no ancillary land , for example in a town or village street, its setting may include a number of other properties or even the whole street’

Which is the case here.

At 6.29 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

‘Development proposals some distance from the site of a listed building can sometimes have an adverse effect on its setting e.g. where it would affect views of an historic skyline…’

Which is the case here.

And it is not one listed building but a complete terrace.

This terrace is the iconic view of Strangford.

So much so that this view appears in the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet , 1985 .

1.03 PPS 6 Policy BH 12 – New Development in a Conservation Area states

‘The Department will normally only permit development proposals for new buildings , alterations, extensions and changes of use in , or which impact on the setting of, a conservation area where ALL the following criteria are met:

(a) the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area;

(b) the development is in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area;

(c) the scale , form , materials and detailing of the development respects the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area;

(d) the development does not result in environmental problems such as noise , nuisance or disturbance which would be detrimental to the particular character of the area;

(e) important views within , into and out of the area are protected;

(f) trees and other landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area are protected; and

(g) the development conforms with the guidance set out in conservation area documents.

2.00 THE PROPOSAL

2.01 New 1.8m high Ibex fence with new pedestrian on slipbolt gate and new pedestrian keypad gate.2no 3m wide vehicular access gates. At no place in the application are we informed as to the purpose of this fence!

The separation of the quay by this fence into 2 distinct areas calls into question the use to which the cordoned off area will be put. This use is material to the application and in fact is so important to determining the need for (and thus the permission for) such a fence that the application should not be validated. Ques.7. on the P1 Application form,

says

“Please give details of the proposed development, including purpose for which the land/buildings are to be used. ( It is vital that a full and accurate description of the proposal is provided. Give as much detail as possible…… )” The description provided does not in any remote fashion comply with this requirement,

viz;

New 1.8m high Ibex fence with new pedestrian on slipbolt gate and new pedestrian keypad gate.2no 3m wide vehicular access gates.

The division of The New Quay represents a loss to the community of Strangford and its visitors and tourists.

Numerous activities take place on this quay, the loss of which would be  detrimental to the life and prosperity of the village.

Fishing

Picnicking

Walking

Sitting

Viewing

Photography

Painting

Boating

Access for sailors

Boat Trips by Murray from Portaferry

Clear skies Outdoor Pursuits

to name but a few.

2.02 The drawings

as submitted do not meet the requirements of The Planning Service Form P1 Checklist, in that they do not provide existing and proposed elevations, levels etc, which are critical to the context of this proposal in the village setting in relation to the listed terrace in Castle Street. The impact of this fence is deliberately obscured by the lack of such information. The small typical details of the fence do not show how impenetrable this fence will be in relation to views through it , in and out of the Conservation Area.

In 6.32 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

‘Where it is considered that a development proposal may affect the setting of a listed building the Department will normally require the submission of detailed drawings which illustrate the relationship between the proposal and the listed building.’

The current  drawings are deficient in that they show nothing of the surrounding context, and its relation to the listed buildings and show no detail whatsoever.

A new P1 form needs to be completed accurately along with realistic elevations.

2.03

This proposal affects‘the setting’ ( as outlined in PPS 6 Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building ).

The proposal should reflect the surrounding environment and be in compliance with the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet , 1985 and with the criteria (a) to (g) listed in Policy BH12 of PPS6, as outlined in (1.02) above.

(a) the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area;

The development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the existing Conservation Area as it provides a visual barrier both from the seaward and landward sides, obscuring the views in and out of the Conservation Area.

(b) the development is in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area;

The development is not in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area in that it is there is no endemic example of such a modern metal fence in the Conservation Area .

(c) the scale , form , materials and detailing of the development respects the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area;

The scale of the proposed fence would not respect the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area. It is a visual obstruction.

(i) Size, height and scale

In the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet 4.4 ‘ It is the Departments’ policy that any development is in keeping with the design and scale of the area and particularly adjoining properties.’

Existing gates /fences , railings in the area are not 1.8m high.

(ii) Materials

The material which all metal work within the Conservation Area should constructed from is  Cast Iron painted black.

(d) the development does not result in environmental problems such as noise , nuisance or disturbance which would be detrimental to the particular character of the area;

The development will result in environmental problems such as noise nuisance – that of banging gates – present at the current pontoon.

(e) important views within , into and out of the area are protected;

The views into and out of the area will not be protected

The views affected by this proposal are

(i)   from the quay looking NW towards compass Hill (into) 

Existing  (Photo taken from the ferry)

Proposed (showing the app height of the fence and how it obscures The view)

(ii)  from The New Quay looking E to the lough (out of )

Existing   (Photo taken from The New Quay at average eye level)

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not The mesh which will obscure the view)

(iii) from The New Quay and steps

Portaferry  to Bankmore on the eastern side of Strangford Lough (out of) .

Existing   (Photo taken from the quay)

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not the mesh which obscures the view)

As the viewpoint changes then the visual impact on other parts of the listed Castle Street terrace is affected.

This is one of the most picturesque views that the public has from Strangford across the Narrows to Portaferry. This view which has existed in its present form since the early 1800s will be completely destroyed  if this proposal is granted.                                                                                                                                                                                          

(f) trees and other landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area are protected;  There are no trees.

(g) the development conforms with the guidance set out in conservation area documents.

the development does not conform with the guidance set out in conservation area document.

The design details  (i)-(ii) in (c) above comply with the guidance set out in the Strangford Conservation Area document.

4.00 CONCLUSION

4.01 The current proposal is a heavy handed solution to what one discerns to be a security problem or the setting aside of a secure compound for other uses than exist at present.

4.02  Adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

The amenity of all residents should be protected from  unneighbourly developments

(i) the current proposal does not enhance the character of the area.

(ii) the current proposal affects‘the setting’ of the listed building terrace along Castle Street from Nos 41-49. And is detrimental to the Conservation Area.

4.03  Visual impact of the development

(iii) the current proposal would not preserve or enhance the character

and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.04  Character of the neighbourhood

(iv) the current proposal is not in keeping with the design and scale of the area.

(v) the materials and detailing of the development do not respect the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area; in as much as they do not use materials in keeping with those used in the Conservation Area.

4.05  Overdevelopment of the site

the current proposal results overdevelopment of the site, in that there is a loss of public open space . now to be used for other purposes.

4.06 The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

(viii) The views into and out of the area will not be protected

4.07 Adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Buildings

(ix) the development does not conform with the guidance set out in the conservation area document.

4.08 Dominance

Dominance is the extent to which a new development adversely impinges on the immediate aspect or outlook from an adjoining property. Neighbouring occupiers should not be adversely affected  by a sense of being ‘hemmed in’ by such a development. This proposal is the epitome of siege mentality and the imposition of an alien form on those living in the village. Even President Obama has called for the removal of fences and barriers.

4.09

If the principle of such a fence was to be established as being advantageous for the Conservation Area and the village and its inhabitants in general , then at the very least , it should be constructed of materials which would have minimal visual impact. i.e  GLASS.

Then there would be no greater impact on the views into and out of the Conservation Area.