Loading document...
Application No.: 14/01180/B Applicant: Mr Stephen Mander Proposal: Installation of replacement windows to front and rear elevations and replacement front door Site Address: 17 Upper Dukes Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4AZ Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 22.10.2014 Site Visit: 22.10.2014 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which sits fronting onto Upper Duke's Road and backs onto a rear lane beyond which there is additional land which also belongs with the dwelling. This lane is narrow and accessed from the south western end of Duke's Road through a narrow in and out access and the lane does not lead all the way through to the lane at the north eastern end. - 1.2 The house is a terraced dwelling with the distinctive chequerboard brick pattern in brown and yellow (diaper-work) which identifies this particular part of Douglas and has led to its inclusion in the Olympia Conservation Area in Douglas, designed in 2003. The Conservation Area Appraisal makes particular reference to these properties, noting with disappointment that some has been rendered or pebble-dashed which has detracted from the overall interest of the terrace. The Appraisal also notes that "the aim would be to encourage an overall pattern of fenestration to be adopted when replacing windows, together with a painting colour scheme to help enhance the appearance of these curious but special properties" (paragraph 3.5). Each property has a plaque with a name upon it - Clarence, Edinburgh, Devonshire, Empress, Albert, York etc - Ducal and Regal references. - 1.3 The dwelling has timber framed sliding sashes on the front first floor and a top quarter casement opening light on the ground floor. This window is wider than those above. At the rear the building is taller due to a fall in ground level. The windows are a mixture of fixed, single panes and one which is subdivided into four sections, the right hand two opening outward. - 1.4 The front door is solid with four bull's eye square panes in the top with two solid panels beneath. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the windows with top hung outward opening casements. The windows in the front will be half and half on the top floor and top third on the ground floor and those at the rear will be top third opening. All of the new windows will be framed in brown uPVC in the front and white uPVC at the rear. The windows in the ground floor at the rear are to be retained as they are. - 2.2 The door is to be replaced by a half glazed uPVC brown door.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. The site also lies within the Olympia Conservation Area (see above). - 3.2 The Strategic Plan contains a policy which seeks the preservation or enhancement of property within a Conservation Area (EP 35). This echoes the policies of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. - 3.3 Planning Circular 1/98 also contains advice about the replacement of windows:
"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."
4.1 This property has not been the subject of any previous applications. The terrace has, however, been the subject of a number of applications which are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application. - 4.2 Perhaps the most relevant is an appeal decision which refused the installation of plastic framed casement windows at number 6 (PA 11/00167/B). This proposal was to replace the two existing sliding sash windows in the first floor of the front elevation with plastic framed top opening casements and also to replace the ground floor window which had already been replaced with a plastic framed casement window. The application was refused and at appeal the inspector comments that,
"It is safe to assume that originally all the houses had timber sliding sash windows at least on the front elevation. Barely any remain. Aside from the upper windows at number 6, there are upper timber sashes at No. 17 (which might be originals) and what could be sashes upstairs at No. 5 though these are plainly modern with quite a different pattern of glazing bars. Otherwise there is an eclectic mix of uPVC and modern hardwood windows with fixed, top hinged, bottom hinged and side hinged casements and fanlights. There is an equivalent mixture in the doors".
He goes on, "There is no suggestion that the Department intends, or indeed could, seek to restore something closer to the original windows along the terrace. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the appellant's submissions, contrasting the refusal in his case with what has been installed more generally along the terrace. However, his house does still exhibit something of the terrace's original character in its upper windows. Their replacement by windows not only different in the material used but in the pattern of glazing bars and opening method, would further erode what little remains of this aspect of the terrace's original appearance and character. In many ways the terrace's strong unifying brickwork serves only to emphasise the discordant pattern of joinery. And if the upper windows should remain at least boardly as they appear now, it follows that the lower window should not be replaced by something entirely different". He concludes that the windows neither enhance or preserve the character of the terrace and the application was refused.
4.3 A further application for number 6 was approved (PA 12/00770/B) with sliding sash windows in the first floor of the front elevation and casements in the rear with the ground floor window remaining as was. - 4.4 Other applications have accepted plastic framed casements in the front elevation - PA 11/01035/B replaced casements with casements at number 10, PA 05/00127/B approved casements on the front elevation of number 7 and as a result of this, similar windows were approved at number 9 (PA 06/00018/B). In the case of PA 05/00127/B the existing windows were not original and what were proposed were to be the same as those in No.8, next door (no record of permission). At that time, it was suggested that there were only two properties in the terrace with their original sliding sashes. REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Douglas Borough Council indicate that they do not oppose the application. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The existing street-scene has evolved through a combination of authorised and unauthorised development, given rise to a variety of different window and door styles currently found within the properties. Subsequently, the Conservation Officer has judged that windows and doors no longer form a fundamental piece of the Conservation Area's character. However, it is also a relevant stance that opportunities should still be taken to conserve what little of the original character is left. Furthermore, the Independent Planning Inspector recognises in his appeal report for previous application 11/00167/B that whilst the terrace has range of doors and window styles, the original windows on the first floor of the front elevation are still fundamental to the original character of the Conservation Area. As such, these factors should be materially considered whilst assessing this application.
6.2 The applicant is, albeit reluctantly, willing to install sliding sash windows in the front elevation but feels understandably strongly that requiring the last original windows in the terrace is unjust and unfair and appears as if we are attempting to "close the stable door after the horse has bolted." It is their view that their original proposal did emulate a sliding sash style albeit not sliding sash. - 6.3 There is clearly a balance to be struck, and in many ways a subjective judgement to be made in respect of whether it is important to retain the original form of glazing where such exists or whether in the overall context of the streetscene it is less important, given the fact that all but two of the terraced properties have new casement windows installed and therefore the contribution which the windows and to a lesser extent, doors make to the character of the terrace is reduced. The determining factor here is really the appeal decision which concluded that where the originals are still in place the original form of opening should be retained, which accords fully with the Planning Circular and Environment Policy 35 even if the frames are plastic rather than timber. It is also helpful for the future should any of the existing casements need to be replaced and there is the will and financial support in place to achieve a replacement of these with sliding sashes. As such, it is recommended that the replacement windows should be sliding sash, as reluctantly agreed by the applicant.
7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
14.11.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
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 drawing 374/1/3A received on 12th November, 2014 and the site and location plans received on 14th October, 2014.
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 : 20th November 2014 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
