Loading document...
Application No.: 15/01042/B Applicant: Mark McGillion Proposal: Erection of kitchen extension and installation of replacement windows to front elevation Site Address: 34 Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1BR Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 17.09.2015 Site Visit: 17.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a mid-terrace, two-storey house on the western side of Patrick Street that is within both the Peel Conservation Area and a residential area. Although the dwelling forms part of a continuous street frontage, there is subtle variety of architectural styles and massing of the dwellings along this frontage. The dwelling has a deeply unfortunate dormer window to both the front and rear elevation, which appears to be timber-faced and forms a very dominant element of the house and streetscene of which it is part. - 1.2 To the rear of the dwelling is a two-storey, flat-roofed outrigger alongside a single storey lean-to extension, which sits on the party wall with no.32 Patrick Street. This wall is of brick construction although does not appear to be a recent addition. The lean-to is understood to be a now-defunct WC.
1.4 The dwelling has awning-style windows throughout, but with very little uniformity: while the dormer window lights are consistently of grey aluminium with a roughly 25/75 split, the windows to the rear appear to be in timber, painted a grey/green colour, and of both 25/75 and 33/66 proportions. Those to the front elevation of the dwelling (excluding the dormer lights) are again of 25/75 proportions, but are of timber and painted brown. None is in especially good condition.
1.4 The land falls away very sharply to the west, where views of the site are readily achievable from the industrial area located below and also Peel Hill, albeit that these views are from a long distance. The walling lining the rear garden is of a height that prevents views of the ground floor of the dwelling even from the industrial area. - 2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for two separate elements. Firstly, approval is sought for the replacement of the existing windows to the front elevation, but excluding the dormer windows. The new lights are shown to be an awning style, but would be of uPVC construction and have a traditional 50/50 split complete with decorative horns; in this, they would match the windows installed at the adjoining no.32 Patrick Street. The applicant has since confirmed to the Department in writing that they would be "happy to go with the sash windows. We went for the sash look windows as they were used by our next door neighbours".
2.2 Secondly, approval is sought for the replacement of the rear lean-to with a flat roofed extension forming an extended kitchen additional to that already within the ground floor of the two-
3.1 The site itself has not been the subject of materially relevant applications, but other properties on Patrick Street have been the subject of applications for replacement windows (PAs 13/00858/B, 07/02372/B) that sought lights of a non-sliding sash opening mechanism that have been approved as the proposed replacements were judged an improvement of the previous, even worse situation. Equally, other applications seeking approval for sliding sash lights (e.g. 07/02372/B, 06/01325/B, 05/00154/B) have also been submitted and approved. Also worth noting are the history of approvals issued to rear extensions (e.g. 08/02202/B, 07/01491/R, 05/01880/B) along Patrick Street, which indicates the attractive views afforded in a westerly direction. - 4.0 PLANNING STATUS
4.1 The site is designated as Residential on the Peel Local Plan 1989, as well as being within the Peel Conservation Area as noted. In view of the nature of the proposal and the location of the site, both General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan should be considered.
4.2 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (adopted 2007) is an extensive policy, outlining the presumption in favour of development that complies with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the Strategic Plan. It 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 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan sets out the presumption in favour of granting planning permission for extensions to existing dwellings in built-up areas where such a proposal would have no adverse impact on the surrounding area or neighbouring properties. Although this does not fully apply in the current circumstance as the proposal would not result in an extension, the principle is considered relevant. - 4.4 Environment Policy 35 adds greater protection to that outlined in GP2: "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." - 4.5 In addition, though, Planning Circular 1/98 contains some important text with respect to replacement windows:
"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."
5.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal in correspondence received 29.09.2015. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The two elements of the proposal are considered separately.
6.2 There is no way of being certain what the original window lights would have been (either sliding sash or a combination of side-opening casements with an awning above are the most likely), but what is evident is that the existing lights detract from the appearance of the building and the streetscene / Conservation Area as a whole. The proposed replacement lights would be of a more appropriate 50/50 proportion. The use of horns is of negligible benefit since it is evident when such windows are open that the lights are not sliding sash, while the depth of reveal and width of mock sliding sash units' frames such as those shown on the drawings are fairly obviously false representations of the more traditional unit. However, the applicant's willingness to install sliding sash units is very welcome and supported: a condition to this effect is recommended accordingly. - 6.3 In view of the overall improvement that would result from the removal of the existing units and their replacement with something of more appropriate proportions and opening mechanism is judged a clear enhancement to the appearance of the Conservation Area in compliance with Circular 1/98 and Environment Policy 35. - 6.4 Turning to the rear extension proposed, this represents something of a difficult balance. It must be remembered that a proposal should, under established Conservation Area policy, preserve or enhance the special character of that Area in order to be recommended for approval. In this regard, there is no Character Appraisal accompanying the Peel Conservation Area and so any assessment of that special character or appearance can present more complexity than in those circumstances where a Character Appraisal does exist. It is therefore helpful if applicants or their agents submit a Statement indicating how they feel their proposal helps to either preserve or enhance the area in which it would sit. No such opportunity has been taken on this occasion, which is unfortunate. - 6.5 The rear elevations of Patrick Street are, as noted, prominent. They are also long-distance. Moreover, many of the rear elevations of the dwellings here - if not all of them - have been altered in some way over the years and so there is a general variation in form, style and massing that is appreciable even if those views are from further afield. Amongst the key defining features of this long elevation are the height of the rear boundary walls and also the fairly consistent ridgeline of the terrace. The roofscape sits against the sky and, owing to the use of natural slate, is fairly complementary to that sky, by contrast to the render finishes of the elevations that are rather more apparent and help define the first floor as the key visual element of the western Patrick Street elevation. Most of the dwellings' ground floors, meanwhile, are not visible from the industrial area (roughly 200m away) but are when on the higher ground (roughly 300m away). While this should not direct the assessment of the current application - after all, just because a development proposal cannot be seen does not automatically make it acceptable - it is a helpful characterisation and guide. - 6.6 In terms of the proposal itself, flat-roofed extensions rarely give a positive visual impression and they also can present maintenance problems longer term. Equally, though, it cannot be ignored that the dwelling's existing form departs dramatically from what its original, traditional appearance would have been.
6.7 The extension proposed would not be visible from the industrial area and, given its small size, from the higher ground of Peel Hill would fairly blend in with the wider elevation rather than be a specific, noticeable feature within it. It would also match in with the way in which the rear elevations along Patrick Street have been altered in a piecemeal and fairly low key manner. In view of this, it is concluded that the proposal just manages to preserve the appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and it is therefore considered that an objection on grounds of its failing to comply with Environment Policy 35 would be difficult to sustain. - 6.8 The impact on the neighbouring no.32 - in terms of their living conditions - would be fairly limited given the size of the extension and the fact that it would replace an existing structure that is also built slightly higher than the boundary wall between the properties. There would be no windows facing the garden of no.32 and the extra height, though possibly slightly uncomfortably overbearing, when balanced against the existing situation and also the limited size relative to the length of the rear garden and general openness of it, could not form a reason to object to the proposal in respect of part (g) of General Policy 2. - 6.9 The proposed patio and retaining wall would have limited material impact on either neighbouring living conditions or the character or appearance of the area.
7.1 In view of the above, the application is, on balance, recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.10.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
The replacement windows hereby approved must have a sliding sash opening mechanism. Reason: In the interest of preserving the character and appearance of the dwelling and Conservation Area in which it sits. The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 15th September 2015: MM/1/15 and MM/2/15.
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.
Signed :…………J CHANCE…….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
