Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 27.08.2014 Site Visit: 27.08.2014 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of the dwelling known as Hazelwood, 1 Cronkbourne Avenue, which is a two storey dwelling situated on the corner of the highway where it joins Cronkbourne Road. The dwelling is the left-hand property of three that were evidently built as a piece; number 3 is a smaller and more reticent property to the southeast, while number 5 completes the short terrace yet further to the southeast as a handed copy of Hazelwood itself.
1.2 The building as a whole is of an unusual design, and includes projecting gables with tiled detail, hipped roofs, a decorative front balcony, turreted features at the corners and a dormer window providing a third storey of accommodation to number 3. Robust brick chimneys, Georgian window features (in part), roughcast render (painted white) and brown concrete tiles complete the dwelling's finish, while strong hedging lines the site to the front and adjacent the highway.
1.3 The site is within the Selbourne Drive Conservation Area. To the rear is an unadopted lane that, given the amount of grass growing there along with various impediments to vehicle traffic, appears to be almost entirely unused.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the replacement of two windows to two different rear elevations. One window sits within an en-suite bathroom, the other within a rear bedroom. They would be uPVC casements to replace timber casements.
2.2 Although hand-drawn plans have been provided with a scale, one of these appears to be incorrect as the plan itself is drawn in perspective. It is also noted that one of the photographs provided appears to have been inadvertently 'stretched' from top-top-bottom, indicating that the window to be replaced in that photo is taller than it is in reality. However, the presence of the scaled plans of the windows, and also given the nature of the proposal, the information submitted is considered sufficient on which to assess the merits of the application.
| Application No.: | 14/01004/B |
| Applicant: | Mr Richard Alan Kewley Halsall |
| Proposal: | Installation of two replacement windows to rear elevation |
| Site Address: | Hazelwood 1 Cronkbourne Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3LA |
3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications considered to be relevant to the determination of the current application.
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is zoned as "predominately residential" in the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 2 (South). The site is within the Selbourne Drive Conservation Area.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.3 Environmental Policy 35 states: "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."
4.4 Planning Circular 1/98: 'The Alteration and Replacement of Windows' sets down the policies in respect of the alteration or replacement of windows. Part 6, Category (c) Buildings Erected Before 1921 Which Have Largely Retained Their Original Character states in part: "If repair is impracticable, or existing windows are not the originals, the preference will be for replacement windows in the...principal elevations to have the same method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE the same or similar pattern and section of glazing bars and the same or similar 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 original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction."
5.1 Douglas Borough Council offers no objection to the planning application in a letter received by the Department on 22nd September 2014.
6.1 The key test is whether or not the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, as required by Environment Policy 35.
6.2 At the time of the site visit, access was not possible. The rear of the dwelling is not readily visible from any public thoroughfare, and of the proposed replacement windows only one was visible from the unadopted lane and above the rear boundary wall. The proposal should be assessed in this context.
6.3 The existing window lights are, while timber, apparently not original to the dwelling. They offer none of the Georgian decoration of the seemingly original window units and are very much utilitarian in appearance. It would be preferable if (i) a more comprehensive (rather than ad hoc) approach to the replacement of windows was proposed, and (ii) the new windows had some element of the Georgian features present elsewhere on the building as a whole. However, this is not the case and, given the small scale nature of the proposal and also the lack of visibility of the new windows it is considered that it would be unreasonable to request amended plans to reflect either of these two points.
6.4 It is to be welcomed that the proposed units are identical to one another in design, which would retain some element of uniformity, although they do not reflect any similar design elsewhere on the dwelling. However, there is limited uniformity to the dwelling's fenestration as a whole in any case.
6.5 It is considered that the proposal would, on balance, just preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area as required by EP35. This conclusion is reached having regard to the relative invisibility of the siting of the proposed works.
7.1 For the reasons set out above, it is considered that planning approval should be granted.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.10.2014
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to the following plans and information, all date-stamped as having been received 22nd August 2014: The Location Plan (Scale 1:1000); the two untitled photographs identifying the windows to be replaced; the untitled rear elevation plan/perspective drawing (scale 1:50), and the new window design plan (scale 1:20).
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 7/10/14
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed: _________________________ Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed: _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
