Buildings considered suitable for protected building status in Ramsey

Summary

The requester asked for a list of 47 buildings in Ramsey identified as potential protected structures but not yet registered. The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture refused to disclose the information, citing exemptions related to cultural heritage and the fact that similar data is already publicly available in other local plans.

Key Facts

• The request concerns buildings in Ramsey with potential for protected status that are not currently on the register.
• A previous FOI response confirmed there are 47 such properties or groups of properties in Ramsey.
• Consultancy reports regarding these properties date back almost 20 years.
• The Department withheld the list under Section 37, arguing disclosure would prejudice cultural heritage.
• The Department also cited Section 20, noting that similar information is publicly available in Area and Local Plans for other regions like Onchan and Braddan.

Data Disclosed

• 47
• 20 years
• 2020-12-01
• 2021-01-13
• 1584697
• 1181449
• 1455946

Exemptions Cited

• Section 37 (Research and Natural Resources)
• Section 20 (Information already available to the public)

Original Request

In respect of the Town of Ramsey could you provide the full list of all buildings identified as having potential for inclusion on the register of protected buildings, but not presently included included on the register building list. The Department has previously withheld this data under section 37 of the Act (Research and Natural Resources), as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the cultural heritage of the Island and the integrity of the buildings on the list. FOI 1181449 The Department has also stated that information in relation to buildings that have been identified as being potentially worthy of inclusion on the register of protected buildings is shown in a number of Area and Local Plans which are public documents that can be found here https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning- policy/development-plan/local-plans/. The Onchan, Laxey & Lonan and Braddan plans are examples of such. As this information is already publicly available it is absolutely exempt from release here under section 20. FOI 1181449 The Department has also responded to a previous request to confirm that there are 47 properties or groups of properties in Ramsey identified as having potential for inclusion on the register of protected buildings, but not presently included included on the register building list. Information disclosed has also shown that the Department has commissioned and received a number of consultancy reports into these properties some of which date back almost 20 years. FOI 1455946 It is contended that 1. the retention of data of this form for almost 20 years is untenable and not representative of an open and transparent government 2. the non-disclosure of the existence of the list to property purchasers (it is not referenced in any planning search responses) has the potential to place new owners in a difficult position in that they may find their intentions for property alteration or re-development constrained by planning when the planning interest had been withheld at the time of purchase. 3. where this occurs the additional constraints may have an adverse impact on finance or business cases for property development and may place new owners in a position where they are unable to secure finance or actually afford to undertake the works on property which they have bought. 4. The risk to property is minimal in that the majority of alterations etc to older buildings (if permitted development is not applicable) will require planning or building control demolition consent and therefore would be subject to prior review by the planning and building control directorate. There is no wide spread evidence that property owners on the Island are seeking to destroy property outside consent in order to avoid registration - other than in respect of the MUA and Glenfaba House. If this were an issue then the Department should be looking to improve development controls rather than maintain a secret listing. 5. The section 20 exemption cannot be applied as although some data is available for some plans this is not consistently applied across the Island - i.e. the list of properties with potential for registration was not published in the Ramsey Town Plan. As the Department has published this data for some areas, Onchan, Laxey & Lonan and Braddan plans are examples of such, the same data should be published in respect of Ramsey.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Freedom of Information Co-ordinator Corporate Services Directorate Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St John’s, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel no (01624) 685854 Fax no (01624 685851 Email: defa@gov.im www.gov.im

13th January 2021 Our ref: 1584697

Dear ###,

We write further to your request which was received on the 1st December 2020 and which states:

"In respect of the Town of Ramsey could you provide the full list of all buildings identified as having potential for inclusion on the register of protected buildings, but not presently included on the registered building list. The Department has previously withheld this data under section 37 of the Act (Research and Natural Resources), as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the cultural heritage of the Island and the integrity of the buildings on the list. FOI 1181449 The Department has also stated that information in relation to buildings that have been identified as being potentially worthy of inclusion on the register of protected buildings is shown in a number of Area and Local Plans which are public documents that can be found here https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning- policy/development-plan/local-plans/. The Onchan, Laxey & Lonan and Braddan plans are examples of such. As this information is already publicly available it is absolutely exempt from release here under section 20. FOI 1181449 The Department has also responded to a previous request to confirm that there are 47 properties or groups of properties in Ramsey identified as having potential for inclusion on the register of protected buildings, but not presently included on the register building list. Information disclosed has also shown that the Department has commissioned and received a number of consultancy reports into these properties some of which date back almost 20 years. FOI 1455946 Response While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt under section 37(1) of the Act, as the information requested relates to research being, or to be, carried out by the Department and disclosure before the completion of the research would be likely to prejudice the subject matter of the research. The severity of this prejudice would be such that it would be likely to harm the historic and cultural significance of a building to the extent that its cultural significance and historic importance would be rendered insignificant and consequently permanently lost

to the Island and future generations. This would harm the Department’s ability to protect the cultural heritage of the Island. As section 37 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large.

Factors in favour of disclosure • To help increase public confidence in the transparency of the building registration process. • To enable the public to examine the list and contribute to its compilation and content, i.e. to aid the consultation process in relation to the entire list and individual buildings. • To enable property owners, and prospective property owners, to buy and sell property with full knowledge of the relevance and importance of that property and its possible future registration. Factors in favour of withholding • The release of the list of buildings (and the identity of any building on that list) may lead to any of those properties being the subject of work which would undermine the condition, the architectural merit and/or the historical significance of that building. • It is critical that initial protection, as part of the registration process, can be implemented while a thorough and complete assessment of the building may be made. • Any of these buildings may be part of a group whose significance derives from being part of that group. If the buildings in that group have different owners any single owner may carry out work to the detriment of the group as a whole; to the extent that the entire group of buildings then loses (or has significantly decreased) its cultural and/or historic significance. Historic ceiling in Bristol case In considering the risk to buildings prior to any assessment and protection being in place, it is appropriate to cite an incident in the UK where a building of value was damaged prior to protection being achieved. See Bristol Post article https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/historic-400-year-old-ceiling-406062. This incident involved a 400-year-old town house in Small Street, in the heart of Bristol Old City quarter. The article states “Bristol’s Civic Society branded the destruction of the interior of number 15 Small Street as deplorable, and Historic England confirmed they were about to inspect the ceiling with a view to giving the whole building Listed Building status.” Were similar harm to occur to a building on the Island, this would certainly damage the ability of the Department, as a conservation organisation, to achieve the objective of protecting and preserving the significant built environment of the Isle of Man. Conclusion In taking these factors into account the Department determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information. Consequently the information is withheld. Other information

The Freedom of Information Act allows the right to request and to receive information. Although it does not also give the right to enter into discussion about the relevant merits of release, those arguments do need to be considered at some point. It is consequently considered helpful in this case, to also respond to your other points at this stage. Each of your contentions is addressed below. It is contended that: 1. the retention of data of this form for almost 20 years is untenable and not representative of an open and transparent government. This information is research into historic properties of potential Architectural and Historic interest about which a decision to protect, or not, has not yet been taken. It is generally factual information that will not change over time, although some alterations may have occurred to the buildings, and this information will be critical during those considerations. To destroy this information and to then have to carry out the same research again would clearly not be the best use of public resources. It is not unreasonable to retain any historic and research information, at least until a decision has been made and possibly beyond that time to allow for re-consideration by future administrations and generations. 2. the non-disclosure of the existence of the list to property purchasers (it is not referenced in any planning search responses) has the potential to place new owners in a difficult position in that they may find their intentions for property alteration or re-development constrained by planning when the planning interest had been withheld at the time of purchase. In theory, absolutely any property may be considered for registration. In practice only those considered to be of special Architectural or Historic Interest will be registered. There is a lot of information already publically available that would help and guide any property owner or purchaser and allow them to make an informed consideration as to whether the property in which they have an interest is likely to be considered for registration. That information can be found here in the “Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings in to the Protected Buildings Register” https://www.gov.im/media/1365687/principles-of-selection-for-rb.pdf . As some of the properties proposed for registration will not ultimately, be registered, releasing the fact that a property is being considered may unfairly prejudice the sale of a property. 3. where this occurs the additional constraints may have an adverse impact on finance or business cases for property development and may place new owners in a position where they are unable to secure finance or actually afford to undertake the works on property which they have bought.

The information referenced above will provide sufficient guidance to enable fully informed finance and/or business cases to be prepared and would place no additional constraints on new or potential owners than were also the responsibility of the current owners. 4. The risk to property is minimal in that the majority of alterations etc to older buildings (if permitted development is not applicable) will require planning or building control demolition consent and therefore would be subject to prior review by the planning and building control directorate. There is no wide spread evidence that property owners on the Island are seeking to destroy property outside consent in order to avoid registration - other than in respect of the MUA and Glenfaba House. If this were an issue then the Department should be looking to improve development controls rather than maintain a secret listing. Not all work that could damage a building, or the historic and significant parts of a building, require Planning or Building Control consent. See also the case referenced in response to 2 above. In that case the property was significantly damaged after the owners became aware that the property was being considered for Listed Building status. 5. The section 20 exemption cannot be applied as although some data is available for some plans this is not consistently applied across the Island - i.e. the list of properties with potential for registration was not published in the Ramsey Town Plan. As the Department has published this data for some areas, Onchan, Laxey & Lonan and Braddan plans are examples of such, the same data should be published in respect of Ramsey." The section 20 exemption is not being applied in this case.

Please quote the reference number 1584697 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.

In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely