Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
1
APPEAL: AP17/0061 PLANNING APPLICATION: 17/01116/B
Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure
Site Inspection: Tuesday 20 March 2018
Appeal made by Rebecca and Steven Ormond-Smith against the refusal of a planning application for the installation of a replacement timber front door at 7 Eastfield, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4AU.
Procedural Matter
The description above is taken from the refusal notice, which adequately summarises that given on the application form.
The Site and its Surroundings
The application site is the residential curtilage of 7 Eastfield, Douglas, which includes a two-and-a-half-storey, mid-terraced dwelling, located within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area (CA).
The current front door of the dwelling is of panelled timber, in the traditional Victorian style, although it has an off-centre, vertical letterbox. The dwelling retains its traditional sidelights and top lights, along with moulding details.
The dwelling is subject to recent planning approvals to replace front and rear windows1.
The Proposed Development
Full planning approval is sought for the installation of a timber replacement door. The application and appeal relate to the door only and not the surrounding lights, which are to be retained.
The primary difference between the existing and proposed doors is that the replacement would have two glass panels in the upper part of the door, instead of the traditional solid finish. The lower panels would be of solid timber.
Planning Policy and Background
The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential in the Douglas Local Plan.
Accordingly, the application falls to be assessed against the relevant parts of General Policy 2 (GP2) and Environment Policies 34 and 35 (EP34-35) of the adopted Strategic Plan 2016. Together, these require that development
1 PA 17/01013/B; PA 16/00906/B
==== PAGE 2 ====
2
should respect its surroundings and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, preferably by the use of traditional materials.
Eastfield is mentioned in the Woodbourne Road CA Character Appraisal, as follows:
The terrace known as Eastfield was an early approach to town planning in that covenants were incorporated into deeds of sale in an endeavour to control the design of properties ... The evolution of ... properties ... happened predominantly in the 1880s and resulted in an interesting and lively mix of architecture. (paragraph 3.24)
There has been some replacement of timber sash windows with white uPVC casements. However, there are increasing examples of repair and upgrading or appropriate replacements which have received grant assistance. (paragraph 4.2)
Negative elements identified are largely judged to be reversible, given time, appropriate guidance and support. (paragraph 5.1)
The Case for the Planning Authority
The material points are:
The key issues are the effect of the design of the proposed door on the dwelling and the surrounding street scene, being particularly mindful of the CA designation.
The dwellings of Eastfield combine to provide the street scene with a very clear rhythm, the majority retaining traditional or original fenestration. The terrace has its own distinctive identity. The terrace has an extremely strong eaves line and string course, along with decorative hood moulds to the first floor windows. At ground floor level, a number of the dwellings retain front canopies that appear to be original. The highly rhythmic nature of the built form, reinforced by dormer windows, gives the impression that the terrace was built as a whole.
Within this context, the existing front doors are unusual. The narrow, vertical panels set within the majority of the doors mark it out as being distinct from other Victorian terraces in Douglas. These, too, would therefore appear to be original.
The proposed replacement door, although of timber, would not be wholly traditional, owing to the glazing proposed. Strong material weight should be given to the proposed retention of the existing lights and detailing around the door, all of which contribute significantly to the traditional and attractive appearance of the dwelling and Eastfield terrace as a whole. Even so, the insertion of two glazed door panels is not appropriate and the new door would replace a design that is probably original. Crucially, the existing door is judged to provide a key characteristic of the terrace.
==== PAGE 3 ====
3
It is acknowledged that the terrace has, by no means, an 'as-original' appearance, with many dwellings having inappropriate dormer windows, window opening mechanisms and door styles, along with the occasional removal of the front canopies. These factors all contribute to a lessening of the character and appearance of the terrace,but, nevertheless, it is judged to be of a quality that should be protected from further diminution. It is accepted that conservation is not to be viewed as synonymous with preservation but, nevertheless, it is further noted that the Character Appraisal of the Woodbourne Road CA states that the appearance of Eastfield was strictly controlled by legal covenant, meaning that there is clear historical precedent for offering stringent protection to the detailing of the terrace.
It is concluded that the development proposed is not acceptable when assessed against the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan and with reference to the CA Character Appraisal. While it is unusual to object to the insertion of a timber door, which is clearly welcome in principle, the fundamental view has to be that the door proposed is less appropriate than the existing and, as such, could not be said either to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The development would accordingly be contrary to EP35 and the refusal should be upheld.
Objection by the Isle of Man Victorian Society
The material points are:
Eastfield is an historic and highly valued 19th Century Terrace, as recognised in the Woodbourne Road CA Character Appraisal (quoted above).
Whilst many of the original windows and doors have been installed to a design different from the original, this should not undermine the need to retain original doors and their style.
No 7 is one of five dwellings, between Nos 1 and 14, which still retain their original, solid timber doors. Several of the non-original, part-glazed replacement front doors within the terrace are not the subject of formal planning approval.
The replacement of the door to No 7, with the half-glazed design proposed, would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area contrary to EP35.
The replacement of the door for improved personal security is no justification for permission because it could be replaced to match the original. That approach would be supported by the Society.
However, the refusal of the present proposal should be upheld.
==== PAGE 4 ====
4
The Case for the Appellants
Throughout the wide extent of the Woodbourne Road CA, there is a mixture of wooden and uPVC doors, including the design proposed in this appeal, which accordingly fits in with the surrounding areas.
Many of the properties in Eastfield no longer have their original door but their owners have failed to obtain planning permission for them, with no apparent consequence or reprimand. Other replacement doors have been formally approved but do not match the original design. In contrast, the Appellants have followed due process but seemingly are being penalised for doing so.
The replacement door would be minor in comparison with other prominent features of the appeal property which are retained, including the canopy and iron railings.
The replacement is necessary to improve security during frequent absences by Mr Ormond-Smith on business.
The proposed door is sympathetic to the Eastfield terrace.
The Appellants support the work of the Victorian Society and are keen to reach a solution. A condition to install frosted glass would be acceptable if this were considered to be an improvement to the appearance of the door.
Other Representations
Assessment by the Inspector
I consider that the sole main issue in this appeal is the effect the proposed replacement door would have on the appearance and character of No 7 Eastfield itself and on the terrace as a whole, in the context of the surrounding Woodbourne Road CA.
I would say, at the outset, that whether the effect of the proposed door in this regard, is acceptable is a subjective judgement to which the Minister is entitled. There are substantive arguments for and against the design chosen by the Appellants.
On one hand, the terrace is protected by covenants which, as pointed out by both the Planning Authority and the Victorian Society in support of the refusal, have no doubt resulted in the terrace of Eastfield retaining much of its original character as an important historic feature of Douglas. This militates against the proposed door.
On the other hand, notwithstanding some uncertainty that all necessary planning approvals have been obtained, the present circumstances are that the terrace has undergone multiple alterations over the years, including
==== PAGE 5 ====
5
permission for replacement windows at No 7 itself, against which the current proposal reasonably falls to be assessed.
Whilst many of the original features of the terrace remain, it is noteworthy that there are numerous later additions. The front doors, in particular, show significant variation. For example, from my own observations, Nos 5, 8-10 and 13 already have upper glazed panels, departing from the original, solid timber form.
Whilst the overall design and proportions of the doors contribute to the visual rhythm of the terrace and the street scene of Eastfield, the effect of the development now subject to appeal is limited to the insertion of two glazed panels where presently the door is wholly of timber.
Crucially, the overall form of the doorway would not be altered as the surrounding glazed lights beside and above the door itself would be retained.
I give little weight to the claimed need to replace the door for reasons of personal security because this could be achieved by an entirely matching replacement.
However, notwithstanding that many alterations to the terrace might be reversible, on balance, in the context of Eastfield in its present form, I consider that the glazed panels within the proposed replacement timber door would have no significant adverse effect on the appearance or character of No 7 Eastfield, the terrace or the street scene as a whole. It follows that I do not consider obscure glazing to the door offered by the Appellants to be necessary but, again, that is a matter for the Minister.
In my view therefore, the proposed development would preserve the appearance and character of the Woodbourne Road CA as required by EP35 and GP2 of the Strategic Plan and, in the circumstances, would not undermine the objectives of EP34, preferring traditional materials.
Whilst the final decision is for the Minister, it is my conclusion that the appeal should succeed.
==== PAGE 6 ====
6
Recommendation
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this 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.
B J Sims
Brian J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
13 April 2018
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
