109956

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B

1 Appeal No: AP18/0045 Application No: 18/00790/B

__ Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal __ Inquiry held on: 20 November 2018 Site Inspection held on: 19 November 2018 __ Appeal by: Miss Kimberley Lowe-Jones against the refusal of the installation of a replacement front door with sidelights and toplight at 2 Victoria Road, Port St Mary, Isle of Man IM9 5AF __ Present: Miss Kimberley Lowe-Jones

Appellant

Mr M Notman & Master J Notman For Appellant

Mr K Costain

For Appellant

Miss S Corlett

Planning Directorate

Mr R Brazier

For Planning Directorate __ Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow. During my site visit I inspected the appeal property as well as the immediate neighbouring dwellings and the surrounding area in this part of Port St Mary. Site and surroundings
2. The appeal building is located at the lower end of Victoria Road, between Cronk Road to the west and Bay View Road to the east. The Victorian terraced dwellings are similar in appearance but No 2 and several others have more ornate detailing than some of those higher up the road. The dwellings on the opposite side of the road are all similar in design. The area is designated as a proposed Conservation Area (PCA) within the Area Plan for the South (APS) and is zoned residential. The designation was initially made in 2006 and was confirmed in the APS in 2013.
3. The Character Appraisal (CA) for the PCA refers to Victoria Road and states ‘By the mid-1890s the construction on the upper promenade was largely complete forming a continuous terrace of high and narrow boarding houses and wider hotels similar to those built on the promenade in Douglas. It then states that some of the owners of the properties had then constructed the family houses in Cronk Road and Victoria Road for their own occupation. Proposed Development
4. The proposed development is the installation of a replacement front door with sidelights and toplights. A submitted image (not a scaled drawing) shows a ‘Chartwell Green’ uPVC frame with a centrally positioned door with clear glazed lights to each side and a plain clear glazed toplight over the door. The door itself is a four panel door with a curved light to the top. The two bottom panels are solid

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B

2 and the upper panels and curved toplight are leaded lights with flower-based, green/blue stained glass. It also indicates a letter box on the mid-rail and a ‘knocker’ between the two stained glass lights of the upper panels. Background information and relevant policy 5. In 2002 planning approval was refused for the installation of casement windows (02/02303/B). In 2003 planning approval was granted for uPVC sliding sash windows (03/00704/B) and these have been installed. Approval (99/00045/B) was granted in 1999 for a uPVC door and uPVC windows at No 8 Victoria Road. Around the same time approval (99/00985) was also granted for the installation of uPVC windows at No 5 Victoria Road. 6. The Planning and Building Control Division (PBCD) indicates that the CA refers to the fact that within the PCA there are many properties where alterations, particularly to doors and windows, have had a negative effect on the character and appearance of this part of Port St Mary. It is indicated that these include replacements of original timber doors and windows with incorrectly proportioned uPVC components. It is also stated that there are many examples of enlarged and over-sized window openings and that these are particularly prevalent with dormer and roof windows. 7. The CA for the PCA also states that ‘Throughout the village there is no consistent window or door style or material used for their construction. Guidelines for future replacements should be published. Whenever possible the use of inappropriate building materials should be discouraged and incentives offered to replace these with more appropriate materials’. 8. The PBCD refers to Environment Policy 35 (EP35) of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) and Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1/1. However these relate to areas which are already Conservation Areas. This area in Port St Mary has not been confirmed as such and thus EP35 and PPS 1/1 cannot apply to this application. However, it is agreed that General Policy 2 (GP2) criteria (b), (c) and (g) are applicable. These seek to ensure that development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale form design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents and the character of the locality. Case for the Planning and Building Control Division (PBCD) 9. The gist of the case for the PBCD is as follows: · The proposed replacement door and surround would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area · The property is within a proposed conservation area (PCA). · The existing original doors to No 2 are in situ as are those at No 4 and most of the properties on the opposite side of Victoria Road · These original features are important and attractive elements which add positively to the character and appearance of the locality · The attractiveness comes not only with the uniformity of detailing but also with the depth and detailing of the timber elements · These features include the small, slim areas of glazing and the heavy transom between the top of the door and the fanlight above

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B

3 · None of these features are replicated by the proposed replacement uPVC door and its surrounding glazing · The introduction of the semi-circular glazed feature is out of keeping with Victorian rectangular and angular elements of these doors and frames · In addition the colour does little to replicate a door which of the same character and appearance as that of the original door Case for the Appellants 10. The gist of the case for the Appellants is as follows: · Other properties within the terrace have had full uPVC replacement frames and doors. These include Nos 6 and 8 · At No 6 full glazed side lights have been installed and there is also one door with a semi-circular glazed feature on a uPVC door. · No 8 received approval to replace the original features with modern materials · A timber door and frame could be painted any colour without the need for planning approval and it would not need to be a primary colour · The proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the proposed conservation area · The door replicates a Victorian door with a period colour; ‘Chartwell Green’, not ‘turquoise’. The door design is from the same period · On the even number side of the street only Nos 2 and 4 have retained their original frames and No 10 has an original frame and door · Nos 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 all have uPVC or composite doors with No 8 being the only property with planning consent · Nos 14, 16 and 18 are newer properties which have consent for newer doors · On the opposite side the majority of the properties have the original frames and mostly either original or modern renderings (circa 1990s) doors · Nos 5 and 13 have uPVC doors (see photographs) · Photographic evidence is also submitted showing two doors approved in a Conservation Area and the Officer’s assessment as to why it was approved · If these doors are not detrimental to the character of the property or the area, then this proposal in a proposed conservation area is also acceptable · It has been 12 years since the area was proposed as a conservation area · The door is efficient in energy terms and is sympathetic to the original property. Planning permission was sought for the proposal · Neighbours consulted all approve of the design and colour. Other Parties 11. The Port St Mary Commissioners do not object to the proposal. Assessment and conclusions 12. Having walked around the proposed conservation area and having seen the appeal property and its neighbours, it is evident that over the years there have been many inappropriate alterations (windows and doors) to these fine Victorian dwellings. Clearly some of the alterations have been granted planning approval and some of these are specifically referred to above. 13. Clearly, through the APS, it has been considered desirable to designate a large part of Port St Mary as a conservation area. The CA is clear about the reasoning behind this decision. Although it has not been so designated at this stage and progress has been slow, it is stated by PBCD that the designation will be completed albeit no date has been given at present.

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B

4 14. When such an area has been designated for conservation area status it is important to ensure that any future development is carefully considered with regard to its potential impact on the area. It is of particular importance to ensure that the inappropriate piecemeal developments of the past, which have whittled away at the overall character, are not replicated so as to exacerbate the negative effects of the historic inappropriate alterations already carried out. 15. Having considered the details of this particular proposal, my first concern is that the information submitted is not to scale. During the Inquiry it was established that the proposed doorway and frame was simply a generated image which did not take into consideration the exact scale and form of what would actually be installed. It was stated that PBCD does not necessarily require scale drawings to be submitted for planning applications. 16. That may or may not be the case. However, PBCD indicated that information submitted should be sufficient to establish what the visual impact of a proposal would be in relation to the host property and the streetscene in general. In this case I consider that what would be installed would not look anything like the image submitted in terms of scale and proportions. 17. The appeal door and frame seem to have been chosen from a catalogue. The colour of the framing is indeed a classic Victorian colour but I disagree with the contention that the door design itself is typically Victorian. The curved fanlight to the top of the door is more akin to a 1930s design and would look completely out of place within this typically Victorian frontage. Whilst accepting that other inappropriately designed doors and frames have been fitted to other properties (some with approval), these cannot be justification for yet further poorly designed and detailed doors and frames being installed. 18. In this case it is not necessarily the uPVC material which is unacceptable. It is the overall design of the door and frame. The existing timber components have a different scaled fanlight and differently scaled side lights to the proposal. There is also a moulded transom between the door and the fanlight. The proposal makes no attempt to replicate the scale and proportions of the door, the fanlight or the sidelights. In my view a uPVC door and frame designed in such a way to replicate the Victorian scale, proportions and design of the existing timber components could in principle be acceptable. The proposal as submitted however is unacceptable. 19. It is acknowledged that in using uPVC components it is not possible to replicate timber mouldings. However it should be possible to at least form a frame and door which did have the same basic form, scale and proportions of the original timber door. It is clear that a new hardwood door and frame would be more costly than one constructed of uPVC and the latter material also has the advantage of being more thermally efficient. 20. However, the proportions of the proposed framing and the specific finishes and patterns to the glazing, in my view would detract markedly from the simple Victorian detailing of the existing door opening. I consider that the overall design and form of the proposal is contrary to the aims of policy GP2, criteria (b), (c) and (g). The proposal, as submitted would be harmful to the character of the townscape in this part of Port St Mary. 21. If allowed to proceed I consider that PBCD would have difficulties in resisting many more applications for inappropriately designed and inaccurately portrayed replacement doors and windows. The proposal as shown does not even indicate what would be the final appearance the frame and door. In my view it is

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B

5 unacceptable as an application in the first instance. If allowed to proceed it would clearly exacerbate the already negative effects of previous harmful alterations to dwellings in this part of Port St Mary. 22. In conclusion, therefore, I consider that the PBCD decision not to grant approval was the correct one in the overall circumstances. Whilst such a design might well be acceptable for a more modern property, it would be significantly harmful to this typical Victorian terraced house as well as to the neighbourhood generally. 23. If the Minister does not agree with my recommendation, I consider that it would be necessary to apply conditions relating to the standard time limit and the submission of a drawing that shows the proposal to scale. Recommendation 24. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI Inspector 30th November 2018