Officer Planning Report

Considerations {{table:154704}} {{table:154705}} {{table:154706}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is No.14 Mona Street situated on the northern side of Mona Street.
• The site is located within a predominantly residential area and the Windsor Road Conservation Area.
• The property is currently being renovated.
• To the east of the application site is the property of No.12 Mona Street.
• To the west of the application site is the property of No.16 Mona Street.

Proposed Development

• The application is for the retention of uPVC windows to front elevation.
• The windows installed are inward opening casement windows.
• A uPVC box framed window has also been installed on the front of the property.

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998.
• PPS 1/01 – Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
• Planning Circular 1/98 – The Alteration and Replacement of Windows.

Planning History

• 04/00473/B – (a) Installation of uPVC sliding sash windows to replace existing on front elevation – refused 14.05.2004
• The reason for refusal was as follows:

"The site is within the Conservation Area, and the building retains its original, attractive windows; replacement of these at the front of the building as now proposed, using PVC-framed windows without the attractive detail of the existing frames, would not preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Area."

• 04/00473/B/Part – (b) Installation of uPVC sliding sash windows to replace existing on rear elevation – permitted 14.05.2004
• 03/01841/B – Conversion of dwelling to 3 apartments, demolition of outbuildings and creation of 2 rear parking spaces – approved at appeal on 02.09.2004

Representations

• Douglas Corporation has not objected to the application.

Assessment

• Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.
• Paragraph 6 of Planning Circular 1/98 states that "If the original windows are in place they should preferable 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."
• Photographic evidence obtained from the Conservation Section show the previous windows in the property were timber sliding sash windows. The property was one of the last properties with the original and attractive windows still installed in the dwelling.
• However, the applicant has replaced the windows without obtaining the necessary planning permission for the new windows.
• The ground and first floor windows have the same pattern and section of glazing bars as the previous windows. However, the windows are inward open casements and not sliding sash. This is contrary to Planning Circular 1/98 which requires the windows must have the same method of opening. I consider these windows are an inappropriate.
• The second floor windows do not replicate the style of the previous windows. The previous windows had a larger lower section of pane with a small pane of glass over with two vertical bars. The new windows are split 50/50. The windows do not accord with the requirement of Planning Circular 1/98.

• The applicant has installed an uPVC glazed box style window over the basement window open. The applicant believes it is aesthetically integrated with the property and a quality upgrade to the previous rotting structure.

• The applicant has also indicated that No. 28 and 26 have box style windows. No. 28 is a timber glazed box structure, which appears to have been in place for a number of years due. However, No.26 has an uPVC glazed box window. This appears to be a recent addition to the property. There is no record of planning permission being granted for the erection of the window. There are no other box windows installed over the basement window opening within the street.

• On consideration that the unauthorised uPVC window at no.26 and the window at No.28 appears have been in place for a number of years and it is in timber I do not consider these windows set a precedent for any further uPVC windows be installed within the street or the Conservation Area.

• The uPVC glazed box window is rather larger and bulky in appearance compared to the previous lightweight timber structure. Furthermore, the window and the lead flashing obscure the arch detailing above the basement window. The box window is highly visible within streetsce. I consider this box window is a prominent and incongruous addition to the dwellinghouse. The retention of the window would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area as it does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

• Overall I consider the replacement windows are inappropriate additions to the property which do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that the application be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 05.02.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The uPVC windows are prominent and incongruous additions to the property. The retention of the windows would adversely affect the visual amenities of the street scene and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made : Refused Date : ...

Signed : ... M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control