Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
1
APPEAL: AP19/0001 PLANNING APPLICATION: 18/00899/B
Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure
Site Inspection: Monday 29 April 2019
Appeal made by Mr John Parsons against the refusal of a planning application for replacing existing timber windows with double-glazed uPVC vertical sliding sash windows at 25 Church Street, Peel, Isle of Man, IM5 1HN.
Site, Surroundings and Proposed Development
The appeal dwelling is part of a continuous street frontage within the Peel Conservation Area (CA). The front windows have upper sashes which are smaller than the main, lower glazed area, and feature part-leaded, stained glass detailing. The proposal is to replace all nine existing timber windows, excluding a small front dormer, with white, uPVC, sliding sash windows with equal-sized upper and lower glazing panes, devoid of any stained glass detailing.
Planning Policy
Environment Policy 35 (EP35) of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires all development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.
The adopted Peel Local Plan states, at paragraph 93, that, in the CA, particular attention will be paid to the design of replacement windows, which might detract from the area.
Circular 1/98 on replacement windows in conservation areas prefers original, publicly visible windows to be repaired or otherwise requires replacements to have the same method of opening and pattern and section of glazing bars as the original windows.
The Case for the Planning Authority
The main issue is whether the replacement front windows would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. There is no objection to the replacement windows at the rear.
The appeal dwelling provides a good example of a late Victorian or Edwardian design with good decorative sash windows and unusual, leaded- light sash panes forming an important detail of the house. The property therefore makes a positive contribution the character and appearance of the CA.
It is appreciated that uPVC sliding sash windows have been accepted in Victorian properties in conservation areas. However, it is the individual character of some buildings, or their features, which gives a conservation
==== PAGE 2 ====
2
area its uniqueness. Such features, that provide individuality, should be preserved. The loss of the front windows, in this case, would be particularly harmful to the character and appearance of the Peel CA.
The proposal is therefore in unacceptable conflict with paragraph 9.3 of the Peel Local Plan and EP35 of the Strategic Plan. The appeal should accordingly be dismissed.
Other Representations
The Peel Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposal.
The Case for the Appellant
The nine windows concerned need replacing due to rotting timber frames, which are beyond repair, following several previous attempts at renovation. Only two of the windows can now be opened for ventilation.
The proposal is for a like-for-like, sliding sash design but without the existing coloured, leaded glazing, which inhibits natural light. The house was built on a parcel of land conveyed in 1928, so is neither Victorian nor Edwardian, as mistakenly stated by the Planning Authority, unlike the other dwellings in Church Street, which are Victorian. None of these other houses have leaded glazing. Only one later dwelling, opposite the appeal house but not strictly in Church Street, does have leaded windows.
Accordingly, the proposed replacement windows would harmonise better with the rest of the Church Street frontage within the CA, removing a current anomaly.
Notably, there is no objection from the Peel Commissioners or neighbours.
The appeal should be allowed.
Assessment by the Inspector
I agree with the Planning Authority that the main issue in this appeal is whether the replacement front windows would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Peel CA, as a whole.
However, I disagree with the Registered Buildings Officer that the windows are in good condition and, from inspection, consider the claim of the Appellant that they are beyond repair to be credible. My first conclusion is therefore that, in principle, the replacement of the windows is justified in terms of Circular1/98. I also accept the assertion of the Appellant that the house dates from 1928, in the absence of countervailing documentary evidence.
==== PAGE 3 ====
3
That said, I do share the view of the Planning Authority, whatever the date of the building, that the highly decorated and unusual, small, leaded-light top sashes make a very significant contribution to the Church Street frontage. That frontage comprises a varied but harmonious series of individual domestic buildings, joined to form a continuous terrace. Window patterns, styles and materials also vary.
However, I consider that the proposed replacement windows, with equal- sized upper and lower sashes and no decorative detailing, would have an unacceptably bland appearance, compared with the original front windows, and would detract from the area. The loss of the original front windows would accordingly harm significantly the character and appearance of No 25 Church Street itself, the street scene and the Peel CA, as a whole. The proposal would therefore be in unacceptable conflict with the requirements of paragraph 9.3 of the Peel Local Plan and EP35 of the Strategic Plan to pay particular attention to the design of replacement windows, which should preserve or enhance the CA.
I recognise that the Appellant requires to find a solution to the need for replacement windows. However, I do not accept that the comparatively small, patterned leaded lights significantly obstruct natural light and it is clear to me that insufficient consideration has been given in this proposal, to their design and detailing, when the scheme is properly judged on individual merit.
I therefore conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application should be upheld.
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 takes the opposite view and grants planning approval, I suggest that permission be made subject to the standard four-year time limit for commencement of the development, to comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country (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
30 April 2019
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
