DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00059/B Applicant: Mr John Williams Proposal: Installation of replacement windows to front elevation Site Address: 44 Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1BS Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.02.2019 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The proposed method of opening, casement windows, would not replicate the existing or original opening style of the windows in this property within the Conservation Area and as such the proposal would be contrary to EP35, PPS 1/01 and Planning Circular 1/98 and the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons none _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing semi-detached, two storey cottage which sits on the western side of Patrick Street, overlooking the industrial area to the west. The existing windows are uPVC framed sliding sash windows in a dark brown frame colour. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing windows with uPVC framed casement windows. No supporting information has been provided other than information which depicts the existing and proposed windows. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989. The site also lies within a Conservation Area.

3.2 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, the following policies are applicable:

• 3.2.1 Environment Policy 35: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
• 3.2.2 Planning Policy Statement 1/01

"POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."

• 3.2.3 Planning Circular 1/98 provides specific guidance on the replacement of windows as follows:

"Buildings 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."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The property has been the subject of a number of applications, including ones for the installation of the current windows - 15/001177/B which replaced the former timber framed sliding sash windows. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services indicate that there is no highway interest in the application (01.02.19). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The proposal would remove windows which replicate the original style of opening and replace them with windows with a different and more modern opening style, which would be contrary to EP35, PPS 1/01 and Planning Circular 1/98, all of which make it clear that the original style of opening should be retained. There is nothing within the submission which justifies setting aside these policies.

6.2 Planning approval has been granted, contrary to Planning Officer recommendation, to the replacement of sliding sash windows in the centre of Peel, with plastic framed casements. This was refused under delegated authority but approved on appeal. The inspector concluded as follows in that case:

"34. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are:

• i. whether the proposed replacement windows would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the surrounding Peel Conservation Area (CA), and if not
• ii. whether there exist other material considerations in favour of the proposal sufficient to justify permission. Planning Policy

• 35. There is no dispute that, in order to comply with the relevant Environment Policy 35, the proposed windows must preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Peel CA. However, it must be borne in mind that PC 1/98 stipulates that replacement windows readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same method of opening, glazing pattern and glazing bar and frame sections as the originals and that PPS 1/01 considers preservation in a wider context than designation as an end in itself. Character and Appearance
• 36. From inspection, the Peel CA as a whole does give the impression that the fenestration throughout its wide variety of frontage buildings has largely kept its original form and character with a preponderance of sliding sash windows. This is no doubt due to the constraint imposed by EP35, notwithstanding the guidance of PC 1/98 that casement windows can be replaced like-for-like.
• 37. I consider that, in this context, any proposal to replace sliding sash with casement windows should only be approved where the particular circumstances of the case indicate exceptionally that this would nonetheless preserve the CA.
• 38. I find considerable merit in the proposition of the Appellant, as supported by the Town Commissioners, that, in this particular case, the two attached dwellings at Nos 2 and 4 Derby Road can rightly be regarded as a unique pair, in the same architectural style, set above and apart from other buildings on the same side of the Road.
• 39. Leaving aside the unlikely prospect that the current or any future owners of No 4 Derby Road might be influenced by the dismissal of this appeal to reinstall sliding sash windows, the intrinsic visual harmony of the pair would thus actually be improved by the front casement windows now proposed for No 2, as these would be in the same overall pattern as both those they would replace and those existing at No 4.
• 40. It follows that, in the wider context of the CA as a whole, the proposed development would not result in harm to its character or appearance, which would accordingly be preserved in line with EP35. Exceptionally therefore, casement windows in place of sliding sash windows are acceptable in this case. Other Material Considerations
• 41. The undisputed material advantages to the appeal property, and to the Appellant herself, of improved sound and heat insulation in this densely urban context add to the case in favour of the appeal. Conclusion
• 42. For the reasons explained above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed."

6.3 Whilst the conclusion of this report and the final decision are not supported, it is clear that the inspector distinguishes the application property and its neighbour as being "a unique pair with the same architectural style" and set apart from others in the road. The same cannot be said for the application property which is very similar to many others along Glenfaba Road and Patrick Street. Whilst this streetscene contains a mix of original, modern sliding sash replacements and more modern casements, some with a half and half split and others with a top third opening, lower two thirds fixed pane arrangement, it cannot be said that the

application property is unique or set apart from others in the streetscene and as such, the same conclusion cannot be said to be applicable here.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal is considered to be contrary to EP35, PPS 1/01 and PC 1/98 and as such is recommended for refusal. 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:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 27.02.2019 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.