Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
1
APPEAL: AP19/0028 PLANNING APPLICATION: 19/00250/B
Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure
Site Inspection: Friday 26 July 2019
Appeal made by Mr Ian Craine against the refusal of a planning application for the replacement of two ground floor windows with a roller shutter door at 10 Water Street, Ramsey, Isle of Man, IM8 1JP.
Site and Surroundings
The appeal relates to traditional, two-storey building on Water Street, Ramsey, a narrow thoroughfare linking Peel Street and Tower Street in the town centre. The site is at the corner of Cannell's Lane, an access running along the north-western flank of the building. There are several, top- opening casement windows in the south elevation facing Water Street, as well as a single doorway. The property is used to store plastering materials.
Water Street is within the Ramsey Conservation Area (CA) and exhibits a mix of architectural styles with some stonework and traditionally designed buildings, as well as car parking areas and garages. The frontages along the western end of Water Street near the site feature traditional timber framed windows.
Proposed Development
The proposal is for the replacement of a section of the south elevation of the building facing Water Street, including two ground floor windows, with a modern roller shutter door 2.6m high and 2.79m wide. It is explained in connection with the application that the door is to facilitate loading and unloading of goods, and plasterboards in particular, which are difficult to handle via the existing single door. It is also noted that the windows would require replacement in future, along with other refurbishment works to the building. The application is accompanied by a photograph purporting to show the style of the proposed roller shutter door, as a shutter within an opening not reaching ground level, whereas the submitted drawing indicates the door extending to the ground with no other detailing.
Planning Policy and Guidance
Environment Policy 35 (EP35) of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (SP) states that, within CAs, only development will be permitted which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.
General Policy 2 (GP2) of the SP includes the requirements that development must respect the site and the character of the surrounding area in siting, form and design.
==== PAGE 2 ====
2
Policy R/E/P6 of the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 (RLP) concerning terraces maintains a general presumption in favour of the retention of traditional uniform frontages on all pre-1920's buildings in terraces by retention of traditional doors and windows.
Planning Circular 1/98 (C1/98) on replacement windows provides that, 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.
The Case for the Planning Authority
The issue is whether the proposed works would harm or detract from the character or appearance of the Ramsey CA.
Water Street connects with the main pedestrian area of Ramsey town centre, some 60 metres west of the appeal site. Although Water Street does not retain a uniform traditional appearance, removal of traditional features would still worsen the appearance of the street scene. The works may be regarded as relatively minor, and would no doubt provide a greater degree of convenience to the occupants. However, the key concern is the appearance of the CA.
The appeal building is of traditional style but of no particular architectural merit. Also, the two timber-framed windows proposed to be removed are not of particular merit in terms of design, and are most likely not the originals. Their replacement with other windows of suitable materials and design could be acceptable.
However, the proposal seeks to install a roller door which would give the appearance of a garage. Whilst there are car park areas and other elevations facing onto Water Street which do little to contribute to its traditional character, this does not mean that any development should be permitted on the street. The proposal would not comply with any of the policies to protect the CA and runs contrary to the recent redevelopment of Ramsey Town Centre.
The stated aim of the Appellant to improve the appearance of the building is noted and welcomed. However, the proposal is assessed on the basis of the replacement of the existing windows with a roller shutter door within the CA, notwithstanding that the area has undergone alteration over the years which have detracted from its original conservation value.
Whilst this is a relatively small scale proposal, it is regarded as contrary to GP2, EP35, Policy R/E/P6 and C1/98, in that it would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and therefore the wider Ramey CA.
On balance therefore, the appeal is recommended for dismissal.
==== PAGE 3 ====
3
The Case for the Appellant
The Appellant purchased the appeal property for storage of plastering products and supplies but the building requires to be made watertight due to well-known local flood risk. The roller shutter door can be installed in such a way as to avoid flood damage to stored plastering supplies, by pinning metal slots to the door reveals to accommodate metal flood barrier plates.
It is not accepted that the roller shutter would detract from the character of the area, which is in dire need of general renovation, as demonstrated by submitted photographs. The aim is to improve greatly the appearance of the building, as a precursor to replacing, like for like, the other windows of the building.
Within 100m of the site there are several properties that currently have, or have had in the past, double garage doors. A roller shutter door would not be much different from these.
The current front door is exceedingly restricted by an internal structural wall, which it is not intended to move, and which partly obstructs the throughway into the building. This makes access for moving supplies difficult.
The proposed roller shutter would allow vehicles to offload a pallet, for example, to be wheeled into the building on a pallet truck, saving time and effort.
It is emphasised that the proposed roller shutter door is not a garage door and is not intended for vehicular access.
Given that the property is described by the Planning Authority as having no particular architectural merit, improving its dilapidated appearance in line with the redevelopment of Ramsey town centre, making it more aesthetically pleasing and useable, would be beneficial to all concerned.
Other Representations
Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposed works.
DOI Highway Services object to the development if there is any question that vehicles would enter the building from Water Street, on grounds of zero visibility in both directions.
Assessment by the Inspector
==== PAGE 4 ====
4
It is clear that the appeal building is currently of unprepossing appearance within a part of the CA which has been subject to many alterations, detracting from its original conservation value. The overall stated aim of the Appellant to improve the building in the context of the redevelopment of Ramsey town centre is laudable. However, the replacement of the remaining windows in the building would require assessment under a further planning application and such prospective future improvements are of no relevance to the present appeal.
The appeal is for assessment on the basis of the submitted plans indicating a roller shutter door reaching down to ground level and wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass through it. It can be accepted that there is no intention to use the shutter as a garage door for vehicle access into the building and such a restriction could be imposed by planning condition.
However, even noting the broad style of the shutter from the submitted photograph, I consider that the proposed door would be a blatantly utilitarian addition to the Water Street elevation of the appeal building, which is presently of essentially traditional style, in keeping with the general character of this part of the CA. As such, the proposal fails the essential test of EP35, in that the development would not preserve the appearance and character of the CA as a whole. It would also conflict with the protective provisions of GP2 of the SP as well as Policy R/E/P6 of the RLP and C1/98 regarding respect for the site and surroundings and the control of replacement windows.
The presence of garage doors and other detrimental alterations to buildings in the vicinity would, to some degree, diminish the perceived adverse impact that the proposed development would have on the area and the wider CA. Also, the development would benefit the convenience of the Appellant in the operation of his plaster supplies storage business.
However, in my judgement, these considerations do not outweigh the fundamental planning objection related to the main issue of the character and appearance of the CA. Moreover, I give no weight to the claimed benefit of installing a flood barrier within the reveals of the roller shutter door because this measure is not detailed on the submitted plans and could be achieved with respect to the existing single door, without the proposed development, in any event.
For these reasons, I conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application should be upheld.
==== PAGE 5 ====
5
Recommendation
I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.
If the Minister were nevertheless to grant planning approval I suggest that this be made subject to the conditions set out in the schedule appended to this Report.
B J Sims
Brian J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
6 August 2019
APPENDIX
Suggested Conditions to be imposed if the Minister decides to grant Planning Approval
Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Approved drawings:
Drawing No 19/01-001 - Site and Location Plan Drawing No 19/01-100 - existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations Proposed Elevation at 1:50 scale
Received 28 February 2019
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
