Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
1
APPEAL: AP18/0006 PLANNING APPLICATION: 17/00950/B
Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal
Inquiry: Wednesday 16 May 2018 Site inspection: Tuesday 15 2018
Appeal made by Castletown Methodist Church Council against the refusal of a planning application for replacement timber plain-glazed windows to the front elevation at Castletown Methodist Church, Arbory Street, Castletown, Isle of Man, IM9 1LN.
Present:
Mr G Thompson MRICS - Diocesan Surveyor - Agent for Castletown Methodist Church Council - Appellant Rev D Shirtliff - Minister, Castletown Methodist Church Mr A Collister - Castletown Methodist Church Miss S Corlett - DEFA Planning Case Officer Mr R Brazier - DEFA Registered Building Officer Mr P Kelly - Isle of Man Victorian Society
Procedural Matters
The appeal was requested in the name of The Rev D Shirtliff but proceeds in the name of the Church Council as original applicant.
The description of the development above is taken from the initial decision notice as adequately summarising the proposal.
During the Hearing, representatives of the Church Council conceded that an alternative means of treating the original windows of the Church is a matter that they ‘must look at’. It is important to make clear that this appeal is for determination on consideration by the Minister of the proposal, as submitted, in the light of all the written and oral evidence provided. This Report is written on that basis.
Description
Castletown Methodist Church stands on the south west side of Arbory Street. The Church is a substantial, limestone building with tall, street- facing, cast iron, intricate, diamond-lattice windows, set within timber frames and finished in a red colour.
The Church Hall stands beside the Church. This smaller building has white- coloured window frames with simpler glazing.
The proposed replacement Church windows would have white-painted timber frames with a simpler plain glazing pattern, similar to those of the Church Hall.
==== PAGE 2 ====
2
Planning Policy
The Church is not a Registered building but is situated within the Castletown Conservation Area (CA). Here, Environment Policy 35 (EP35) of the adopted IoM Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS1/01) together require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The Conservation Area Assessment does not mention the Church but refers to the importance of retaining or replacing original windows where possible.
Planning Circular 1/98 (C1/98) advises that, in conservation areas, original windows should preferably be repaired or replaced with windows having the same method of opening, glazing pattern and frame sections as the original windows, when readily visible from a public thoroughfare.
Case for the Castletown Methodist Church Council - Appellant
The material points are:
Whilst within the Castletown CA, the Church is not Registered. There have been many changes in the CA, including replacement of original timber sash windows with uPVC windows nearby, contrary to the provisions of C1/98.
However, due to the sensitivity of repair work required to the windows of the Church, a specialist expert report was submitted as part of the application. This confirms that very substantial degradation has occurred to all the lattice sections of the ironwork, which would require sand- blasting. The glazed areas would be enlarged by sandblasting and 1,000 separate pieces of new glass would be required for re-glazing.
The proposed timber windows would reflect the window pattern in the adjacent Church Hall and provide a long-term solution. The proposed white paint finish is standard for ecclesiastical buildings on the Island but the Church Council is open to alternative colour requirements.
An alternative treatment proposed by the Victorian Society (see below) is based on the example of the much smaller Welch House, where the windows are only about 2m high. The Church windows, at 5.25m high, are not directly comparable. However, the Church Council accepts that such alternatives should be considered.
There is damp in the Church entrance and the original cast iron pipe central heating system will need modernising in the medium term. The original roof will require re-slating, also in the medium term.
Audited Church accounts show reserve funds of only £30,000. The cost of repairing the original windows alone would be approximately £42,000, including VAT, with additional hardwood sub frames costing in addition, some £11,700. On completion, the repaired windows would need further protection against vandalism.
==== PAGE 3 ====
3
Established methods of protection in use on the Island are polycarbonate sheeting, fine wire mesh and over-glazing. These methods are either of limited life or obliterate sight of the original windows.
For these reasons, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal, such repair work will not be undertaken.
The proposal is honestly made and the appeal should be allowed.
Case for the Planning Authority
The material points are:
The existing windows are distinctive, interesting and original. In the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA, the appearance of the windows should be replicated and not simplified or lost. As proposed, the replacement windows are not considered to preserve the character of the CA. In unifying the fenestration with the simpler windows of the Church Hall alongside, the proposal would fail to enhance the CA.
With respect to replacement windows previously permitted elsewhere in the CA, it is necessary to bear in mind that the implementation of C1/98 is dependent upon the nature of the windows to be replaced, which are often not original.
The reason given by the Appellant, in this case, for the non-replication of the original form of glazing is practicality and cost. However, only a single cost estimate has been provided. It is suggested by both the DEFA 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, to retain the character of the building.
The cost of the windows proposed, compared with the alternatives suggested, has not been considered in detail, nor has the availability of grant funding or the raising of additional monies by means such as sponsorship been addressed. There is, accordingly, no justification for allowing a form of glazing to the Church, which would be detrimental to the CA on the basis of prohibitive cost.
Other Representations Received
The DEFA Conservation Officer advises that a closer replication of the existing windows would be more appropriate than the submitted scheme.
The Isle of Man Victorian Society notes that the type of cast iron lattice glazing in the Castletown Methodist Church was common in churches and chapels on the Island the 1830s, many the work of architect John Welch. Several were replaced by stained glass in the 1880s and 1890s. The Castletown Methodist Church provides one of the few surviving examples of the earlier glazing.
==== PAGE 4 ====
4
The technical report submitted by the Church Council outlines the pitfalls of attempting a complete like-for-like window replacement. Apart from the amount of work involved, this would be very expensive and not to be recommended.
There is, however, an alternative method available, while keeping this rare example of 1830s fenestration. A similar problem was experienced at Welch House in Onchan. In that case, a blow lamp was used to burn out the paint, putty and glass. The windows were not sandblasted but merely sanded, avoiding distortion of the metalwork. The ironwork was then painted and fitted into new timber frames behind a single sheet of glass. In the case of the Church in the present case, provision could be made to accommodate joints in the glass, replicating the present glazing pattern. This work to Welch House was undertaken in the mid-1970s and has not required further attention since. Although Welch House is much smaller than the Church now in question, this example demonstrates that there is a much cheaper, but still effective, means of approaching the present problem. This should at least be investigated before any decision is made to destroy this feature of Island heritage.
The Society therefore opposes the introduction of the new form of glazing pattern proposed, which fails to reflect the original concept and design.
Mr J Moorhouse MHK was unable to attend the Hearing due to other Government business but, in a late written representation accepted at the Hearing, supports the ‘voice of reason’ which those involved in the appeal proposal have worked hard to have heard.
Ms A Macnair, resident opposite the Church, in a late written representation, supports the appeal on several grounds. The Church is a much-used community building, important to Castletown as a Service Centre. The front windows of the Church are visibly in a state of disrepair and in urgent need of attention. It is commendable that the Church Council does not wish to leave them in a state of neglect. Expert evidence is that like-for-like replacement is impractical for a building for modern use, and would treat the building as a museum piece. The proposed windows would be purpose-made to the original size and shape in fabricated in high quality hardwood, ensuring their future for the next hundred years. The Church Hall is part of the Church and at present there is a glaring clash between the two buildings. This is a perfect opportunity to create some harmony and enhance this part of Arbory Street.
Assessment by the Inspector
Planning Issues
==== PAGE 5 ====
5
Conservation Area
Even though the Methodist Church is not a Registered building, it is clearly a major community facility of Castletown, making a very significant contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area by way of its architecture and social and historical significance.
The apparent lack of success of C1/98 in achieving a consistent approach to replacement windows in the nearby parts of the CA is evidently related to whether the windows replaced were original. I consider that the replacement windows now proposed in the particular case of the Methodist Church require to be considered on their own individual merits.
I do not agree with the submission that the Church and the adjacent Church Hall should be considered as a single whole. On the contrary, the buildings are quite distinct. Therefore, the approach of the appeal proposal to replicate the simpler, white-painted Church Hall windows in the Church itself is no justification for the chosen design. That is notwithstanding that white-painted windows are common in ecclesiastical buildings or that an alternative colour could be specified.
In my view, the original lattice front windows are visibly an outstanding feature of the CA, as supported by the unchallenged submission of the Victorian Society that they provide one of only a few remaining examples of 1830s glazing. Their replacement by any form of window which would not at least replicate the original design would be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA.
Based on the submitted technical evidence of the Church Council, as well as direct inspection, it is obvious that the windows are in urgent need of repair or replacement due to major corrosion of the ironwork and rot in the timber sub frames.
However, in my judgement, the windows proposed, with their far simpler glazing pattern, would fail to preserve, and certainly would not enhance, either the appearance or the character of the CA. In these respects, the proposed development would accordingly be in serious conflict with EP35 of the Strategic Plan.
As a result, it is my first conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed, unless there are overriding considerations to justify the replacement windows proposed.
Other Considerations
==== PAGE 6 ====
6
required in the medium term. I also take account of the written support expressed for the appeal, including by Mr J Moorhouse MHK, who would have attended the Hearing in person but for other Government business. All these factors count in favour of the appeal.
Importantly however, only a single cost estimate is submitted for the potential repair work to the original windows and no documented account has been provided as to any potential alternative repair or replication scheme or sources of grant aid or other funding.
I am impressed, in particular, by the evidence of the Victorian Society, as taken up by the Planning Authority, that there may be an alternative approach to retaining the original windows by less radical repair work and protection by plain glazing, as employed successfully at Welch House, Onchan, in the 1970s.
This approach could evidently offer a potentially less expensive alternative to either full re-glazing or the established protective measures of polycarbonate sheeting, fine wire mesh or over-glazing, understandably discounted by the Church Council. Notably, the Church representatives at the Hearing conceded that such an alternative is something they ‘must look at’.
In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that all reasonable alternatives to the appeal proposal have been considered. Such consideration is necessary to overcome the significant objection on grounds of adverse impact on the CA, which I have found above.
Conclusion
Conditions
Recommendation
==== PAGE 7 ====
7
B J Sims
Brian J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
7 June 2018
==== PAGE 8 ====
8
APPENDIX
List of Suggested Conditions to be imposed if the Minister decides to uphold Planning Approval
Cl 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.
C2 No development shall take place until full details of the construction and paint finish of the replacement windows hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance and character of the Castletown Conservation Area.
Approved Plans
Location Plan Proposed Plan Ref 2684/1
Received 7 September 2017
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
