Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00950/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00950/B Applicant : Castletown Methodist Church Council Proposal : Replacement timber plain glazed windows to front elevation Site Address : Methodist Church Arbory Street Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1LN
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 16.01.2018 Site Visit : 16.01.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The introduction of a new, simpler form of glazing would detract from the interest and original appearance of the existing building and introduce a consistency in fenestration between the two buildings which does not presently exist and is not considered appropriate. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 which requires that development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The Isle of Man Victorian Society who are a properly constituted body whose interest lies at the heart of the material considerations in this case.
__
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of Castletown's Methodist Church which sits on the south western side of Arbory Street. The building is a distinctive one, a substantial limestone building with red coloured iron framed round headed long windows facing Arbory Street, and which have an intricate glazing pattern where each light is vertically subdivided into two or three with each glazed area subdivided into a much greater number of small diamond shaped lights.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00950/B Page 2 of 4
1.2 The church hall sits alongside to the south east and has a different style of windows with none of the delicate smaller panes and the rounded top of the window subdivided by curved glazing bars creating an arched effect and the area below subdivided into six upright rectangles.
1.3 The elevation facing Farrant's Way has simpler glazing which looks like the original stained glass has been protected by an outer, plain glass and all fitted into a squat, rounded tower type feature facing the road.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the iron framed windows with timber framed windows with the same, simpler glazing pattern of the hall alongside.
2.2 The applicant has provided a report from a stained glass specialist, identifying the very poor state of the existing frames, pointing out where the rust expansion has caused the cracking of the glass and also that repairing the frames, removing the rust alters the shape and profile of the frames, thinning the ironwork to the limit of what can be accommodated by putty and glass. He imagines the windows to be the originals dating back to the opening of the church in 1834. In his view, the existing windows are beyond repair and that complete new cast iron sections are no longer available.
2.3 In further correspondence with the applicant, they suggest that the windows in this case are far larger than others on which they have been provided with information, they cannot guarantee either the longevity of the decorative leadwork on the outer face or their similarity to other leadwork in the other windows or other parts of the same window and cost is an important consideration to the church which has limited funds.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within Castletown's Conservation Area within an area of Mixed Use. The CA has been the subject of an assessment which does not refer specifically to the church but refers to the importance of retaining the original windows or replicating them wherever possible.
3.2 Planning Circular 1/98 - Replacement of Windows provides advice which for buildings within a Conservation Area is as follows:
"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."
3.3 Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 require that development within a Conservation Area preserves or enhances the character or appearance of an area.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was granted for the application of polycarbonate sheeting to protect 8 side windows (00/02348/B) and other alterations have been approved, other than an application to remove a chimney and re-roof the property in Welsh slate (06/01523/B).
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00950/B Page 3 of 4
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Isle of Man Victorian Society objects to the application, suggesting that the lattice iron windows are original to the church and have been part of the street scene since the 1830s and the church is a prominent part of the area. He advises that there are other ways of retaining and repairing the latticework, for example sanding rather than sand blasting the existing and priming and painting the ironwork and fitting it into a new timber frame behind a single sheet of glass with vertical joints accommodated in the glass (16.10.17).
5.2 The Conservation Officer's advice was sought and he advised that a closer replication of what exists would be more appropriate.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The existing windows are distinctive, interesting and original and in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, their appearance should be replicated, not simplified or lost. As such, the proposal is not considered to preserve the character of the Area and in unifying the fenestration with that of the church hall alongside, would not enhance it either.
6.2 The reason for the non-replication of the original form of glazing appears to be practicality and cost. It is suggested by both the Conservation Officer and the Isle of Man Victorian Society, both of whom have experience in this type of window, albeit possibly on a smaller scale, that either renovation or replication can be achieved either of which would retain the character of the building.
6.3 The cost of the proposed compared with the suggested has not been discussed in detail, nor has the availability of funding or the raising of additional monies through sponsorship or fund-raising so there is no justification for allowing a form of glazing which would be detrimental to the Conservation Area on the basis of prohibitive cost.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to be detrimental to the Conservation Area and 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:
__
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00950/B Page 4 of 4
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.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : 22.01.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal