109955

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00790/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00790/B Applicant : Mr Mark Notman Proposal : Installation of a replacement front door with sidelights and toplight Site Address : 2 Victoria Road Port St. Mary Isle of Man IM9 5AF

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 20.08.2018 Site Visit : 20.08.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.09.2018 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposed door and surrounds would fail to replicate the details and proportions of the existing and thus detract from the character and appearance of not only the property, but the surrounding terraces which are identified as being worthy of consideration for Conservation Area status. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 which provide guidance on Conservation Areas.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

none __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling which is situated at the lower end of Victoria Road, a steeply sloping street which links Cronk Road with Bay View Road in the east.

1.2 The dwelling is one of four properties with the same detailing and form: the terrace then becomes plainer with the next two properties and the highest two are different again. Across the road is a terrace of dwellings which are all the same other than the lowest part which has a tall, more decorated projection.

1.2 The majority of the properties on the other side of the road (3, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 17) and the application property and number 4 on this side, have their original doors and door surrounds. The other properties in the terrace have had their front doors and door surrounds

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00790/B                                     Page  2  of  4

replaced with modern materials. Only one of these has the benefit of planning approval - number 8 under 99/00045/B. Many have plastic framed casement windows in the front elevation, the application property and number 4 having sliding sashes.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the door and its surrounds with composite materials and without the detailing and depth of features that has the existing frame and surround. The style of glazing is also changing without the solid panel either side of the door in the lower part and the fanlight will be reduced in width to just across the front door. The door will have decorated glass panels in the upper part and a semi-circular glazed feature above them. The frame and door are shown as being a light turquoise colour.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within a proposed Conservation Area within the Area Plan for the South (2013) where the site is also designated as Residential.

3.2 The Character Appraisal for this proposed CA refers to Victoria Road as follows:

"By the mid-1890s the construction on the upper promenade was largely complete, forming an almost continuous terrace of high and narrow boarding houses, and wider hotels similar to those built on the promenades in Douglas. Owners of some 7of these guest houses were responsible for the construction of family housing built in Cronk Road and Victoria Road for their own occupation. Further development took place along Bay View Road consisting ground-floor shops with residential accommodation above."

"There are two roads between Bay View Road and Cronk Road, these being Victoria Road and Gellings Avenue. The former has solid terraced housing, dating from the turn of the century, to either side of the steeply inclined road. These differ in design, to the right (northern side) the houses are of three storeys, whilst those on the left (southern side) are two-storey with triangular dormer windows at roof level. At the top of the road on the right-hand side, are three modern town houses which do not integrate well with their Victorian neighbours."

"Throughout the proposed conservation area, there are properties where alterations, particularly to windows and entrance doors, have a negative effect on the area as a whole. This includes replacement of original timber windows and doors with incorrectly proportioned uPVC replacements. These often have an inappropriate wood grain. There are many examples of enlarged and oversized window openings with no consideration to appearance, but merely to improve the view out from the property. This problem is particularly prevalent with dormer and roof windows."

"Throughout the village there is no consistent window or door style, or material used for their construction. Guidelines for future replacements should be publicised. Wherever possible, the use of inappropriate building materials should be discouraged and incentives offered to replace these with more appropriate materials. This can include doors, windows and roofing materials. A special effort should be made to replace corrugated asbestos sheets roofs on industrial buildings with slate."

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was refused for the installation of casement windows to replace the existing sliding sash under 02/02303/B and this was followed by 03/00704/B for uPVC sliding sashes which were approved and have been installed.

4.2 The plastic door at number 8 was approved along with plastic framed windows under 99/00045/B and at a similar time, permission was granted for the installation of plastic framed windows at number 5 under 99/00985/B.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00790/B                                     Page  3  of  4

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners have no objections to the application (23.08.18).

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed replacement door and surrounds would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and also that of the surrounding area, paying particular attention to the fact that the property lies within a proposed Conservation Area where the policy requires development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area which is considered to be of special architectural or historic interest (Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Guide to the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man and EP 35 of the Strategic Plan).

6.2 The existing, original doors and surrounds for this property, as are in situ with number 4 and the majority of the terrace opposite, are an important and attractive feature which add to the character of the properties and link them together as properties which have common history. The attractiveness comes not only with the uniformity of detailing and proportion but also the depth of the timber elements of the surrounds, the small, slim areas of glazing and the heavy transom separating the door from the fanlight above. None of this would be replicated in the proposed door frame and this detail and continuity would be lost.

6.3 In addition, the introduction of a semi-circular glazed feature is out of keeping with the rectangular and angular elements of these doors and frames and the light turquoise colour does little to replicate a door of the character that the originals would have been. Doors of that age would have been painted primary colours or black or white.

6.4 The Registered Buildings Officer concurs with these views.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed door and surrounds would fail to replicate the details and proportions of the existing and thus detract from the character and appearance of not only the property, but the surrounding terraces which are identified as being worthy of consideration for Conservation Area status. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 which provide guidance on Conservation Areas.

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: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

__

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00790/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 : 07.09.2018

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.