Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01088/B Applicant: Mr George Sharpe Proposal: Replacement uPVC casement windows to front and rear elevations, blocking up of front dormer side windows and replacement with uPVC cladding Site Address: 11 Kingswood Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LY Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Site Visit: 15.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The shiplap-style uPVC dormer cheek material would be inappropriate to this historic setting, and would harmful to the character and appearance of 11 Kingswood Grove, the terrace in which it sits, and the wider Conservation Area as a whole. As such, the development proposed is contrary to Environment Policies 34 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None. _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 11 Kingswood Grove, Douglas, which is a mid-terraced two-storey dwelling with a pitched roof dormer in the roofspace. The terrace
1.2 The dormer has a decorative finial on its pitch, and appears to be constructed with timber frames for both the sliding sash window and also the lights in the dormer's cheek. - 1.3 The dwelling has sliding sash windows to its front elevation and casement-opening windows to the rear.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for two distinct forms of development. Firstly, it is proposed to replace the existing dormer cheeks with shiplap-style uPVC panels. Secondly, it is proposed to replace the four rear elevation windows with bottom-hung uPVC casements.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Planning approval was sought for the installation of replacement windows under PA 03/01819/B, but this was refused for the following reason:
"The site is within a Conservation Area, and there are in place the original, attractive windows; whilst there are, in adjacent properties, unsympathetic replacement windows, the Planning Committee judges that the character and appearance of the Area should not be further damaged by the installation of any more inappropriate windows."
3.2 Also noteworthy is the approval issued to the neighbouring 9 Kingswood Grove under PA 01/01190/B, which sought for alterations to the then-existing dormer and which resulted in the installation of similar shiplap-style uPVC panels as those proposed under the application the subject of this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the Douglas Local Plan. It is also within the Douglas (Windsor Road) Conservation Area, which was adopted in 2003. The Character Appraisal for the area mentions Kingswood Grove in passing, noting that it was initially designed as a cul-de-sac when first laid out in the 1870s, and moreover that it (along with Richmond and Osborne Groves) is "tightly packed with features such as splayed bays, dormer windows, arched headed windows with decorative mouldings repeated to give a sense of well-ordered unity". - 4.2 The nature of the development proposed is such that the application falls to be assessed against General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 34 and 35 of the Strategic Plan, as well as against Circular 3/91 (installation of replacement windows).
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI stated the application had no highway implications on 7th November 2017.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 That the site lies within a Conservation Area means that the development proposed must be judged to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of that Area. In some ways the development proposed is minor in nature, and the assessment needs to be proportional to that. However, it must also be noted that Kingswood Grove has a number of traditional features and details, and the retention of these may be key in retaining the character and appearance of the Area. - 6.2 It is noted that there is a neighbouring dormer window with the detail as proposed here. It is further noted that this was installed prior to the adoption of the Conservation Area, but is the sole such feature in the terraces. It is moreover judged that the appearance of this feature detracts from the quality of the built environment of the vicinity. While it may, possibly, be judged as not being inappropriate against General Policy 2, it is not considered that the replication of an existing poor quality feature could be judged as appropriate against Environment Policy 35 (nor, indeed, EP34). - 6.3 It is worth considering if the other development proposed is acceptable in order to reach a view as to the acceptability of the overall works: namely, are the proposed replacement windows an enhancement that could positively outweigh the negative impact of the proposed dormer cheek detail?
6.4 It is to be noted that the existing windows are not traditional, but are of differing styles. In this context, the proposed windows - identical in style - would reasonably be judged a slight enhancement relative to the existing situation. - 6.5 However, it also to be noted that the rear of the dwellings is not a particularly accessible area, and the development proposed to the frontage has been judged harmful to the dwelling, terrace and Conservation Area as a whole: this frontage is also prominent, and sited near to a Registered Building in a very historic area of Douglas. It is therefore not considered that the slight improvement to the rear elevation could outweigh the identified harm to the front elevation.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 It is concluded that the development proposed, overall, fails to comply with Environment Policies 34 and 35 by introducing untraditional and harmful materials to what is an attractive and historically interested Conservation Area.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 23.11.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
