Loading document...
Application No.: 20/00113/GB Applicant: Mr Benjamin & Mrs Christine Dutnall Proposal: Installation of replacement windows and doors to front and rear elevations (in association with 20/00114/CON) Site Address: 3 Auckland Terrace Parliament Street Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1AF Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.04.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that repair is impractical to all windows and door as required and in addition, by virtue of the use of modern frame materials and inappropriate glazing pattern, the proposed works would have a substantial, harmful impact on the Registered Building contrary to Environment Policies 32 and 34 of the Strategic Plan, Policies RB/3 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Planning Circular 1/98.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons 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 4(2):
The IOM Antiquarian Society 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; 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 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
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 3 Auckland Terrace, Parliament Street, Ramsey Registered Building (No.152), which is part of a row of traditional three storey terraced properties (mid-terrace) which are located on the northern side of Parliament Street within the centre of Ramsey town centre. The terrace, known as Auckland Terrace, is all Registered.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the installation of replacement windows and doors to front and rear elevations (in association with 20/00114/CON). - 2.2 On the front elevation the proposal include the replacement of the existing five timber sliding sash windows with uPVC sliding sash windows. The ground and first floor windows are the common 50/50 split sash windows; whilst the second floor windows have a proportion of 70/30 split; which is a common proportion to the second floor windows along Auckland Terrace. The proposal would to replace all the windows and replace with 50/50 split uPVC sliding sash windows. The front door would not be altered by these works. - 2.3 The proposals to the rear elevation includes the replacement of the original five timber sliding sash windows, including glazed panels with uPVC sliding sash windows. The rear ground floor door would be replaced with a black uPVC door in a similar style as existing.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application building and site are located outside the Conservation Area; although the property and Auckland Terrace are Registered Buildings. - 3.2 It is considered that the Strategic Plan contains policies that are specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 3.3 Strategic Policy 4 states that 'Proposals for development must:(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest'. - 3.4 Environment Policy 32 states: "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted." - 3.5 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Guide to the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man states the following: - 3.6 POLICY RB/3 - General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-
3.7 POLICY RB/5 - ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.
Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence.
3.8 Environment Policy 34 sets out the Department's preference for the use of traditional materials in the extension, alteration or maintenance of pre-1920s buildings.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 There are previous planning applications which are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. - 4.2 It is noted that Nrs 6 and 10 Auckland Terrace have had planning approval for replacement timber windows to the properties in the early 1990's. All other applications to properties along Auckland Terrace, which include a number of uPVC replacements, appear to have been refused.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Ramsey Commissioners do not object (23.03.2020). - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is no highways interest (18.02.2020). - 5.3 The Principal Registered Buildings Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (22.04.2020):
"Auckland Terrace is a set of fine early Victorian townhouse set out in a classical style with a strong symmetrical rhythm across the terrace. They are a good example of early Victorian townhouses which demonstrate the increasing wealth and aspiration of the town during this period.
The proposals seek to replace all windows with UPVC sliding sashes.
The building currently has timber sash windows to front and rear. The principal elevation widows have lost their original glazing pattern through the loss of the glazing bar and smaller
panes but remain as timber sashes. The rear windows appear to be original and retain the correct glazing detail.
The replacement of the windows (and one door) with UPVC would cause harm to the significance of this registered building, UPVC as a material is not traditional and cannot replace the appearance or detail of timber.
The applicant fails to make any assessment of the building's historic or architectural special interest and fails to make any justification for the proposed change in material or design or why the existing windows cannot be repaired or even indeed need replacing.
I consider the proposals would fail to preserve the special interest of the building as a registered building and do not comply with any of the above planning policies. I therefore strongly recommend the application is refused."
5.4 The IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society have objected to the application which can be summarised as (04.03.2020); it should be sacrosanct to maintain the integrity of the appearance of the building and the terrace as a whole; while the existing front windows use of astragals has been previously altered, now to permit UPVC in this building would severely detract from its appearance; at the rear there is no justification given for the loss of the existing 12 pane sliding sash windows let alone for their replacement by UPVC; this applies to door also; and the applications should not be permitted in Registered Buildings and certainly not in a terrace of them.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The proposal is to replace the likely original timber framed windows to the rear elevation and replacement of previous replacement timber sliding sash windows to the front elevation, all with uPVC sliding sash windows. - 6.2 As stated in the above policy section the strategic plan policies require development proposals to protect or enhance the fabric of Registered Buildings and their character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, stating that proposal that will detrimentally affect these will not be permitted. The additional Planning Policy Statement 1/01 also emphasises 'the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses'. - 6.3 As a specific guide for replacement windows and doors, Planning Circular 1/98 states that 'If the original windows are still in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impractical, replacement windows MUST BE THE SAME as the originals in all respects, including the method of opening, materials and detailed design. This policy will be strictly applied other than where particular circumstances are so exceptional as to justify a relaxation'. - 6.4 As stated in the circular the initial emphasis should be repairing the original windows and their frames, which is in essence is the first test. If repair is impractical, which the applicant is required to demonstrate, then the replacement windows must be the same as the originals in all respects. - 6.5 The applicant has not provided any details of the existing windows in terms of the current condition and has not provided any justification for the proposed removal and replacement. Likewise details of the existing door have not been provided, in terms of the current condition, nor has a justification for the proposed removal and replacement. - 6.6 The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that repair is impractical. Regardless, as outlined by the Principal Registered Buildings Officer, the proposal is unacceptable as it removes original features of special architectural or historic interest, namely the paned
windows to the rear, replacing different window proportion to the second floor windows to front elevation and proposes to replace all windows and door with unsympathetic materials (UPVC) that are contrary to the Planning Circular 1/98.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposed works would have a substantial, harmful impact on the Registered Building contrary to Environment Policies 32 and 34 of the Strategic Plan, Policies RB/3 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Planning Circular 1/98.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 1/5/20 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown