Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01452/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01452/B Applicant : Mr Mark Notman And Miss Kimberley Lowe-Jongs Proposal : Replacement of existing front door with composite door and UPVC surround. Site Address : 2 Victoria Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AF
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.02.2020 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. 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.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings 01131, 01131A, the location plans and image of the proposed door, all received on 30th December, 2019.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 Speaker of the House of Keys as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, as they do not refer to the
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01452/B Page 2 of 6
relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
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 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 a composite door with plastic surround with decorative moulding to replicate the existing as closely as possible.
2.2 It is highly relevant that there was a previous application (referred to in Planning History below) where a composite door and replacement frame were proposed but were refused initially and at appeal, due to the drawings being inaccurate and in any case, what was proposed was considered to be unsympathetic.
2.3 In this case what is proposed is shown in detailed drawings of both the existing and proposed which replicate each other, other than the door will have two vertical decorative glazed panes in lieu of a single glazed light above two panels (which are also going to be replicated.
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 of 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
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01452/B Page 3 of 6
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."
3.3 EP 35 and 34 respectively require that development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that in the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920s buildings the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
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.
4.3 Most relevantly, 18/00790/B proposed a replacement door and surround and was refused. The inspector hearing the appeal against the refusal made the following comments before recommending that the application was refused:
"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.
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. Appeal No AP18/0045 Application No 18/00790/B
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.
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
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01452/B Page 4 of 6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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."
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners have no objections to the application (23.01.20).
5.2 Highway Services have no highway interest in the application (10.01.20).
5.3 The Speaker of the House of Keys supports the application, suggesting that the Conservation Area has not been adopted and should have little or no weight in the
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01452/B Page 5 of 6
determination of this application. He notes that there are many properties in Victoria Road which have modern doorways which do not detract from the character of the area at all. Other changes have been authorised which have a bigger impact but were considered not to constitute a material difference (14.01.20).
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. This would be replicated in the proposed door frame and this detail and continuity would be maintained. Whilst not stated in the current application, it was mentioned in the previous application and in pre-application discussions regarding the current application, the applicants are experiencing incoming damp and cold and have sought advice from a number of practitioners, none of whom have been able to provide a solution which retains the existing door.
6.3 The criticisms of the inspector in the previous application have been addressed both in terms of the quality of the drawings and that of the scheme itself as the new doorway will replicate the existing, with the drawings taking into account the existing detail of the door and frame. Whilst the materials are not traditional as preferred by EP34, the inspector makes it clear that uPVC itself is not objectionable and that an appropriate profile and design of doorway could be acceptable. It is considered that the applicant has now demonstrated that the use of UPVC as a frame material is successful.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed door and surround will replicate the details and proportions of the existing and thus preserve 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 accords 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
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/01452/B Page 6 of 6
o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
__
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 : Permitted Date : 03.03.2020
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