Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00816/B Applicant: Mrs Olwen Watterson Proposal: Installation of replacement windows Site Address: Sheear 2 Derby Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1HH Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 18.08.2016 Site Visit: 18.08.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated towards the western end of Derby Road, abutting the rear of the former bus station and number 22, Athol Street and the rear of the Centenary Centre. The property fronts onto Derby Road on its southern side and is part of a pair of dwellings which are not identical. The application property has a front door to the left of the frontage and a single vertical window alongside and two windows above the door and window. All windows are uPVC framed sliding sash and are showing signs of wear and tear - for example, the obviously retro-fitted horns are coming away from the lower frame of the upper sashes. The property alongside, number 4 is wider, with a central door and window either side and three windows above. These windows are uPVC framed casement opening types, installed under PA
1.2 The properties opposite have mostly uPVC framed sliding sashes apart from one section of Athol Buildings where there are three sets of uPVC casements. Further down Derby Road towards Athol Place, the building on the same side of the road as the application site has an array of timber sliding sash windows with Georgian pane pattern. A number of properties around Atholl Place have also either retained their original sliding sashes or have had these replaced with uPVC framed ones. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing uPVC sliding sashes with uPVC casements and the replacement of windows in the side and rear which are largely casement windows. The applicant, and her adviser, The Courtyard who are a window installing company, indicate that sliding sash windows will not provide the level of noise insulation required in respect of traffic and church bells as sliding sash windows only have a woodpile seal with a maximum thickness of double glazed unit being 24mm thick - any thicker would make the window too heavy to open. They consider that they have looked at all the other properties around the application site and they have casement windows. The applicant is finding living in the centre of the town difficult due to noise and litter and does not consider that the proposed casement windows would look very different from the existing. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within Peel's Conservation Area within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of town centre uses in the area - shops, offices, cafes and dwellings. Within such Areas the Department has a duty to require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and this is encapsulated in Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
3.2 Planning Circular 1/98 provides further advice on the fitting of replacement windows in Conservation Areas:
"If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME pattern and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the original windows.
Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as the originals, but not necessarily the original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction."
4.1 The existing windows were installed under PA 03/00022/B and a front door replaced under PA
12/00652/B.
4.2 The windows which have been replaced in Athol Buildings and 1-3A, Derby Road all replicated the window style which existed in the building prior to replacement (PAs 15/00194/B, 07/00396/B and 05/01668/B).
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they have no highway interest in the application (18.08.16).
5.2 Peel Town Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application (22.08.16). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The existing windows comply with the intention in the Conservation Area policies to preserve the character of the area in that they are sliding sash which replicates the original form of opening, albeit they are in a very poor condition. What is proposed would not achieve either a preservation or an enhancement as it would result in a modern style of opening window which is apparent both when the windows are closed (as there is not a complete overlap between the upper and lower sashes) and particularly when the windows are open. The issue in this case therefore is whether there are reasons to set aside the requirement to preserve or enhance the appearance of the area. Such reasons could relate to other properties in the area having had similar windows installed and/or other reasons relating to the adequacy of sliding sash windows in this location.
6.2 Whilst the application includes the suggestion that there are other casements in the area, it is clear from visiting the area that the vast majority of windows in the area, which were originally sliding sash, still are, either in their original form or having been replaced with new sliding sashes, many with plastic frames.
6.3 Life in a town centre is often noisier and busier than further out of town and this site is close to the town centre and where there are restaurants and bars which are open late into the evening and which generate noise and disturbance as patrons and staff leave the premises, often late in the evening or early morning. The nuisance affecting the application property is much the same as that affecting the properties opposite, the bank accommodation next door and those in Atholl Place, almost all of which have sliding sash windows. The noise from bells is likely to affect the rear of the property, which is subject to slightly different considerations than the front, and where the installation of casement windows is likely to be acceptable as it is not generally publicly visible. - 6.4 Information on one supplier's website indicates that uPVC framed sliding sash windows can operate effectively in terms of seal - energy efficiency and noise. It is not clear whether the applicant has considered or sought information from a range of different suppliers to see if the effectiveness of new sliding sash windows is greater than that which she has previously experienced.
6.5 Whilst the applicant's concern about noise is understood, it is not considered, given the ubiquity of other sliding sash windows, that this justifies the installation of windows in the front elevation which are not sliding sash and as such the application is recommended for refusal but without prejudice to a proposal for casement windows in the rear of the property.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 22.08.2016
R 1. The replacement of sliding sash windows on the front elevation in the heart of the Conservation, with casement windows would undermine the character and attractiveness of the area where the majority of properties have sliding sash windows - either their originals or newer modern replacements and would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 both of which require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Interim Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 30.08.2016 Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Interim Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
