Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01384/B Applicant: Mr Owain Brimfield Proposal: Replacement of existing windows with black finish pvc casement windows to front, rear and side elevations Site Address: 1 Mona Street Peel Isle of Man IM5 1HJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 04.01.2017 Site Visit: 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION SITE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a three-storey property located at the corner of Mona Street and Christian Street in Peel's Conservation Area. The dwelling is prominent in the streetscene, particularly when viewed from Christian Street to the west, and has an unusual appearance owing to the Georgian glazing bars in the windows almost throughout the dwelling: the front (Mona Street), side (Christian Street) and rear (facing east onto the yard). The windows are single glazed timber, each with a top-opening section of frame that comprises three lights, and are not original to the dwelling. On the ground and first floors, the fixed element of the frame are three lights in height, while on the second floor the windows are two lights in height. - 1.2 It is understood that the Georgian-style windows were installed during the early 1980s, prior to the Conservation Area being designated. These replaced the more traditional, Victorian-style windows that were sliding sash in a manner replicated notably, albeit not ubiquitously, along Mona Street. Moreover, at the chamfered corner of the property, facing onto the junction of Mona and Christian Streets, a door was present, sat centrally between two apertures, each containing sliding sash units of slightly different appearance. This feature would presumably have been original to the building, reflecting the fact that the property was, at ground floor, once a butcher shop. - 1.3 Photographs of the previous windows in the Mona Street / Christian Street elevations will be shown to Members during the officer presentation of this application. - 1.4 There is a smaller, two-storey outlet at the rear (east) of the dwelling, which connects into 4 Christian Street to the rear, and this has top-opening casement windows (one aperture has two frames, the others only one) with none of the Georgian styling. These windows are less prominent than those with the Georgian detailing owing to the ground floor being wholly obscured by the rear yard wall, and also the two-storey massing of the outlet itself, relative to the three-storey massing of the majority of the dwelling.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of replacement windows throughout the dwelling.

2.2 These would be formed of uPVC frames, coloured black, with internally expressed transoms and mullions within those. There would be a mixture of frame sizes, which reflects the different sizes of the window apertures. The largest aperture, at the chamfered ground floor level, will have eight-over-eight lights, while on the floor above they would be six-over-six lights, with the uppermost floor having three-over-six lights. - 2.3 To the rear outlet, the windows would be full glazed units, with the exception of one in the first floor that is formed of two side-opening casement lights.

3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3.1 The site lies within a wider area zoned as Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan, and is also as noted within the town's Conservation Area. There is no Character Appraisal accompanying the Conservation Area, and so the application falls to be assessed against the following two policies of the Strategic Plan. - 3.2 General Policy 2 states, in part: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the 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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.3 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." - 3.4 In addition, and in support of EP35, Circular 1/98 ('The Alteration and Replacement of Windows') sets down the policies in respect of the alteration or replacement of windows. (Part 6 Category b) Buildings in Conservation Areas states:

"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 original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 Unfortunately, it has not been possible to determine under what planning approval the existing windows were installed. The historic mapping on which the planning reference number has been written is too badly obscured to read. However, from records submitted to the Department of the works undertaken, it is possible to presume these windows were installed during the early 1980s. - 4.2 The front door to the dwelling was installed following the grant of approval to PA 11/00029/B. - 4.3 Although there have been a number of planning applications seeking approval for replacement windows throughout Mona Street and also the parallel Church Street (to the east), it is

• not considered that any of these is material to the assessment of the current proposal. Each of those applications was assessed having regard to the particular circumstances of the dwelling in question, which is of course a fundamental planning principle, but in the case of the current application the evident uniqueness of the dwelling is such that reference to other applications is unlikely to be particularly helpful.
• 4.4 For completeness, those applications submitted on these streets for replacement windows (and doors) since the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007 are set out below, in date order: Approved:

• o 16/00914/B - 7 Church Street
• o 15/00490/B - 1 Church Street
• o 15/00433/B - 12 Church Street
• o 15/00420/B - 23 Church Street
• o 15/00373/B - 1 Church Street
• o 14/01000/B - 21 Mona Street
• o 14/00233/B - 9 Church Street
• o 13/00723/B - 23 Church Street
• o 13/00398/B - 4 Church Street
• o 13/00707/B - 13 Mona Street
• o 12/01183/B - 21 Mona Street
• o 10/00739/B - 15 Church Street
• o 09/01504/B - 3 Church Street
• o 09/01959/B - 17 Mona Street
• o 08/01644/B - 5 Mona Street
• o 07/00872/B - 5 Church Street Refused:
• o 07/01567/B - 15 Mona Street, for the following reason:

"The installation of the replacement casement windows would be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Circular 1/98 in that the replacement windows would be out of keeping with the general character of the street and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality."

4.5 In the one case where non-sliding sash windows were approved (PA 15/00490/B), the case officer was mindful of the existence of inappropriate windows at the time the application was submitted. This reflects an important tenet of the planning system, which requires the Department to be mindful of an existing situation in making decisions. - 4.6.1 It is also worth noting a very recent appeal decision issued at 2 Derby Road in Peel. The Department initially refused an application (PA 16/00816/B) that sought to replace existing (albeit in a poor state of repair) sliding sash units with casement-style units. The applicant was of the view that, as the neighbouring, semi-detached dwelling also had casement-style units, which were approved under PA 11/00633/B as replacements for the previous casement windows, their application should be found similarly acceptable. The applicant also explained that noise ingress through the existing units was unacceptable to her, and that this would be addressed by the installation of casement windows. The case officer concluded her assessment as follows:

"Whilst the applicant's concern about noise is understood, it is not considered, given the ubiquity of other sliding sash windows, that this justifies the installation of windows in the front elevation which are not sliding sash and as such the application is recommended for refusal but without prejudice to a proposal for casement windows in the rear of the property."

• 4.6.2 Accordingly, the application was refused for the following reason:

"The replacement of sliding sash windows on the front elevation in the heart of the Conservation, with casement windows would undermine the character and attractiveness of the area where the majority of properties have sliding sash windows - either their originals or newer modern replacements and would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 both of which require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."

• 4.6.3 The Inspector in considering the appeal noted as follows; the paragraph numbers are his own:

• "36. From inspection, the Peel CA as a whole does give the impression that the fenestration throughout its wide variety of frontage buildings has largely kept its original form and character with a preponderance of sliding sash windows. This is no doubt due to the constraint imposed by EP35, notwithstanding the guidance of PC 1/98 that casement windows can be replaced like-for-like.
• "37. I consider that, in this context, any proposal to replace sliding sash with casement windows should only be approved where the particular circumstances of the case indicate exceptionally that this would nonetheless preserve the CA.
• "38. I find considerable merit in the proposition of the Appellant, as supported by the Town Commissioners, that, in this particular case, the two attached dwellings at Nos 2 and 4 Derby Road can rightly be regarded as a unique pair, in the same architectural style, set above and apart from other buildings on the same side of the Road.
• "39. Leaving aside the unlikely prospect that the current or any future owners of No 4 Derby Road might be influenced by the dismissal of this appeal to reinstall sliding sash windows, the intrinsic visual harmony of the pair would thus actually be improved by the front casement windows now proposed for No 2, as these would be in the same overall pattern as both those they would replace and those existing at No 4.
• "40. It follows that, in the wider context of the CA as a whole, the proposed development would not result in harm to its character or appearance, which would accordingly be preserved in line with EP35. Exceptionally therefore, casement windows in place of sliding sash windows are acceptable in this case."

• 4.6.4 Again, it is to be noted that the site the subject of the current application is unique and as such other decisions made for similar proposals will have a different starting point. It is disappointing that in the case outlined above the Inspector felt it unlikely that owners of the neighbouring property would be influenced by any decision reached in that appeal case. It seems fairly certain that the loss of sliding sash windows from both the dwellings will certainly have that effect. However, his more relevant point in the current case is made at paragraph 37 of his report, in which he sets out how a proposal for non-traditional windows might be viewed as preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This reflects the wording of the policies and Circular outlined earlier in this report, and so the resulting recommendation in the current case will turn on whether or not the proposal reflects a preservation or enhancement over the existing situation.

4.7 Finally, it is also worth noting the assessment of the case officer in respect of some replacement windows proposed at 3 Christian Street, under PA 16/01064/B, which was approved. While this application was not subject to an appeal, and of course each application needs to be treated on its own merits, the assessment nevertheless sets out an approach to applications such as this where the site is in a Conservation Area but the existing windows are not original to the building:

"The application site is a prominent one within the Peel Conservation Area. The buildings either side have sliding sash windows as would ordinarily be preferred within a CA, although it is noted that the newer building opposite unfortunately has been constructed with top-opening casement lights.

"That said, it is also noted that the existing property has a somewhat disordered principal elevation in terms of the size, style and appearance of its window frames. A semblance of order in terms of the transoms would be welcome, and the balance in this case must be the extent to which the loss of timber and the insertion of uPVC is acceptable against the intention to regularise the appearance of the windows across the front elevation."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Peel Town Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 18th January 2017. They were asked to clarify their view, but failed to do so. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 There can be little doubt that the reversion of the building's appearance to its previous state would be an enhancement to what is a prominently sited property in Peel's Conservation Area. The insertion of a shopfront-style window and door arrangement would better allow for the commercial use of the property at the ground floor to be understood and appreciated. The existing, unusual arrangement, though quirkily characterful, is inaccurate to the age and use of the building. Such works as were undertaken to install the windows currently in place would not be viewed favourably today, although it should of course be remembered that the role of the planning system is to manage, rather than dictate, change.

6.2 It was on this basis that an alternative proposal was put to the applicant and their agent, with the suggestion being that uPVC-framed windows replicating the building's previous appearance would be very much welcomed. - 6.3 However, the agent commented as follows:

"…having spoken to Owain Brimfield [the applicant] he would like the application to go ahead as proposed ,if there where issues he would have to re-visit, thanks for you info but costs come into this as well."

6.4 Externally expressed glazing bars were sought. The agent responded:

"…unfortunately this again comes down to extra cost, so the customer would like the application to proceed as specified."

6.5 As such, the acceptability of the application will turn on whether or not what is proposed represents a preservation or enhancement of the existing building and Conservation Area in which it sits, as per EP35. - 6.6 That the existing situation is historically inaccurate does not automatically mean that a preservation of that situation would be unacceptable. Although this is a peculiar case, in that the windows in place are highly idiosyncratic, this basic premise remains true. - 6.7 The existing timber-framed windows on the principal elevations are neither original nor traditional to the dwelling, and therefore are historically inaccurate from an architectural point of view. They are nevertheless characterful and to some people this character may be a positive one. That which is proposed in their place would continue the existing historical inaccuracy, but inappropriately. - 6.8 While the Department has in many Conservation Areas accepted that plastic-framed windows are acceptable, this is generally where the units proposed are sliding sash or where the

• existing frames are not traditional or are varied in appearance and where a more regular appearance throughout the elevation is to be welcomed. (Such a view was, as noted, taken recently at 3 Christian Street.)
• 6.9 In this case, however, there is already a clear sense of regularity throughout the principal elevations, and this is provided through the use of timber, which is a traditional material. The loss of this regularity, along with the loss of timber, to be replaced with plastic frames would serve only to worsen an existing unusual and inappropriate situation. Accordingly, the proposal does not reflect a preservation or enhancement of that situation, and it must therefore be concluded that the scheme fails to meet the key test of Environment Policy 35, and also the requirement of Planning Circular 1/98. For similar reasons, the application must also be concluded to be in conflict with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2.
• 6.10 The replacement windows proposed in the rear outlet are considered to be unobjectionable in their own right in that they would closely reflect the existing situation. A more standardised approach / appearance in frame style would be preferred here, but this element of the application is not considered fatal to it.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the above assessment, it is concluded that the application should be refused. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o 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;
• o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 25.01.2017

R 1. The existing windows are not original to the dwelling and nor are they traditional to the dwelling. The proposed replacement of those timber-framed windows with plastic-framed units would harmfully worsen the existing situation in a manner that would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and, in particular, Mona Street where a number of dwellings have timber and / or sliding sash windows. Accordingly, the proposal would harmfully impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Planning Circular 1/98, and also to Environment Policy 35 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 06.02.2017 Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional reason was required YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 06.02.2017

Application No. : 16/01384/B Applicant : Mr Owain Brimfield Proposal : Replacement of existing windows with black finish pvc casement windows to front, rear and side elevations Site Address : 1 Mona Street Peel Isle of Man IM5 1HJ Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report

During discussion of the application at the Committee meeting, the Highways Engineer present enquired as to whether or not the windows proposed open out over a highway. In noting that they did, and also that the existing windows opened out over the highway, the Highways Engineer further noted that the proposed windows would open at a position lower than is the existing situation. Accordingly, the proposed windows would worsen an existing dangerous situation and would thereby cause a danger to pedestrian safety by potentially forcing pedestrians into the road when having to avoid open windows.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. The existing windows are not original to the dwelling and nor are they traditional to the dwelling. The proposed replacement of those timber-framed windows with plastic-framed units would harmfully worsen the existing situation in a manner that would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and, in particular, Mona Street where a number of dwellings have timber and / or sliding sash windows. Accordingly, the proposal would harmfully impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Planning Circular 1/98, and also to Environment Policy 35 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 2. The proposed windows would open out over a pavement at a height lower than the normallysought 2.1m, and would therefore cause a danger to pedestrian safety by potentially forcing pedestrians into the road when having to avoid open windows. This is contrary to Transport Policy

• 4 and part (h) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.