Planning Officer Report

Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Holly Lodge, which lies on the western side of the A3 highway to the south of Bishopscourt. Immediately to the north of the site is Fox Cottage, a small hipped roofed property with central dominant chimney. Holly Lodge is a handsome stone building with central tower feature within the slated pitched roof, projecting front gable and church-style windows on the ground floor with sandstone surrounds, and two pitched roofed dormers in the front pitch. Both properties sit lower than the road.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the replacement of certain window elements in the ground floor of the property. Currently there is a mixture of timber and some uPVC frames which it is proposed to rationalise by installing a window system which involves very slim frames shaped to match the aperture. Where there is a need for an opening, a small hinged aperture within the pane can be introduced as is proposed here with the kitchen windows. The original framework of the windows concerned will be reinstated and inappropriate uPVC elements removed.

Planning Status And Policy

1. The site lies within an area of Private Estate on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 where there is a site of archaeological interest identified and within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.

1. The building is Registered (RB 23). As such Strategic Plan Environment Policy 32 is relevant and states: "Extensions of alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted."

1. The Department's policy on replacement windows is set out in Planning Circular 1/98. In respect of Registered Buildings, this states: "If the original windows are still in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows MUST BE THE SAME as the originals in all respects, including the method of opening, materials and detailed design. This policy will be strictly applied other than where the particular circumstances are so exceptional as to justify a relaxation."

Application No.:	12/01014/GB
Applicant:	Mr Steven James Ward
Proposal:	Installation of replacement windows to ground floor (In association with 12/01015/CON)
Site Address:	Holly Lodge Bishopscourt Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2EZ

Planning History

1. The property has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and extensions under PAs 84/0920, 91/0765, 94/0029, 96/0973, none of which is relevant to the consideration of this application.

Representations

1. Michael Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application.

Assessment

1. CONSERVATION OFFICER'S SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:

As the property is a Registered Building (RB 023), the content of this application has been considered with particular regard to RB/3: GENERAL CRITERIA APPLIED IN CONSIDERING REGISTERED BUILDING APPLICATIONS and POLICY RB/5 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS and as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01- Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. Environment Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) and Planning Circular 1/98 The Alteration and replacement of windows, specifically Category a) REGISTERED BUILDINGS is also relevant to determining this application.

1. "Planning Policy Statement 1/01 RB/3: General Criteria Applied in Considering Registered Building Applications

The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:

• The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
• The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;
• The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings).

1. "RB/5: Alterations and Extensions

In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

1. Registered Building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.

1. Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative affect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."

1. Those windows currently in place are poor quality painted timber casement windows of inappropriate opening format, clearly not the original window opening style or material as would have originally have been in the property, although it is accepted that the windows were in place when the property was added to the Protected Buildings Register.

1. Historically/traditionally, church windows were fitted within an asymmetric slot cut into the stonework reveals which allowed the glazed panels to be installed. That proposed is the replacement of the inappropriate casement windows with a glazing system which utilises this same traditional form of installation, but does so with a modern, double glazed unit. This will result in a virtually frameless glass installation, avoiding the heavy framing associated with affixing a frame to the reveal as illustrated by the modern windows currently in place to the building. These proposals will therefore reinstate a more traditional format of glazing which will result in an enhancement to the Registered Building. In doing so, these proposals are considered to be in accordance with the Planning Policies as set out within this report and are therefore recommended for approval.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Michael Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 03.09.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the replacement of windows as shown in drawings and illustrations all received on 17th and 18th July, 2012.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 3/9/12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ___________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ___________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ___________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ___________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager