Appeal No. AP14/0054 Application No. 14/00683/B REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MR ROBERT NELSON AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF A CHIMNEY STACK AT 18 KENSINGTON ROAD, DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 14 October 2014 after a site visit on 13 October. The following persons appeared at the inquiry: For the Appellant: Mr R Nelson For the Planning Authority: Mr E Riley

THE APPEAL SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2. The appeal relates to a mid-terrace property on the north side of Kensington Road some 25m to the west of the junction with Kensington Avenue and 150m to the west of Bucks Road. The upper (second) floor of the property is partly within the roof, with the front windows at that level within a gabled element which rises above the main eaves height. No. 18 is one of 5 adjoining properties which were originally similar in design. These have been altered such that they now have varied detailing in respect of elements such as the absence or presence of friezes and ornamentation above and around the windows, the differing forms of window frames and their opening arrangements, and the various textures and colours of the finishes to the external walls. The terrace exhibits further variety in that it includes a more recently erected property at 15 Kensington Road at the eastern end, and 3 properties at the western end of the terrace which are faced in red brick and have elements of Arts and Crafts design. This terrace is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The building currently contains flats.

3. It is proposed to remove a chimney stack which rises above the roof of the building. This stack is located above/close to the party wall which divides the property from the adjoining house at No. 17 Kensington Road. It is one of a series of chimney stacks which punctuate the roof of the terrace.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

The main points are:

4. The property suffers from dampness. This results from moisture coming through the brickwork of the chimney stack. The chimney has been capped off, but its brickwork is porous. As with most of the chimneys nearby, this one is no longer in use, and so it no longer benefits from the drying effect of the heat from fires. The damp affects the flat on the upper floor. There are concerns about the effects it has on the health of the occupiers and the possibility that the tenants of this flat might leave. Replacement of the lead flashings to the chimney has not solved the dampness problems. Constant redecorating and re-plastering has been needed but the damp has persisted. The building of a new inner wall has also failed to resolve the problem. The adjoining property at No. 17 is also affected, and it is known that No. 16 has a long standing problem of water penetration and resultant dampness from its chimney. Several companies have erected scaffolding and attempted to resolve the dampness at that property in the last 2 years, but to no avail.

5. If the stack is removed and the roof made good it could be guaranteed that there would be no more water penetration or dampness. This would cost much less than rebuilding the stack. The relative costs would be about £1500 for removal, about £3500 to render the stack and replace its concrete top, and about £5000 to dismantle and rebuild the stack. There seems no valid reason to undertake rebuilding given that the chimney stack would never be used. The flats in the building have central heating. The condensing boilers installed are not connected to the chimneys within the stack.

Appeal No. AP14/0054 Page 1

6. Unlike the properties in the terrace from 1-14 Kensington Road, which are of a higher quality, the properties in this terrace do not have any uniformity of appearance. There are 3 different types of houses, including 2-storey houses further to the west. Even the 5 properties which include No. 18, and which were originally similar in design, do not now share all of the same design features. Some of these are pebble-dashed, some are painted and some are rendered. There are various types of chimney stacks. Some of these are rendered, some are of facing brick and others have been painted with grey fibreglass paint to try to stop the damp. The chimney stacks on the new-build property at No. 15 do not match any of the other chimneys, and are of lower height. Given the present lack of uniformity in the appearance of the terrace, the removal of this chimney stack would not result in a significant change to the appearance of the property or of the terrace, and it should be permitted.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The main points are: 7. The property is in the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. Although the Character Appraisal makes no mention of the importance of chimney stacks, they are considered to be striking features of many of the buildings, including the appeal property. The chimney stack is substantial. It is of a design which is characteristic of this terrace, although it is accepted that No. 15 Kensington Road has chimneys of a different appearance. The Conservation Officer considers that the chimneys form an important element of the overall character of the terrace, and that the removal of this chimney would have a detrimental impact on its character and appearance. That would in turn mean that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be harmed. 8. As well as the specific impact of this proposal, there is also concern about the precedent that would be set for the removal of other chimney stacks if this proposal is approved. The appellant acknowledged that he is aware of other instances where similar problems of damp arise. The Planning Authority knows of other applications being made for similar proposals. The Authority seeks to resist these on terraced properties such as the appeal property, both within and outside Conservation Areas. 9. The Planning Authority is aware of the issues that arise with dampness in cases such as this. However, this property is a sensitive piece of the built environment, and the water ingress problem is not considered sufficient to outweigh the design concerns. The harm the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area, and particularly to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area, is contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") and Policy CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 "Conservation of the Historic Environment". The appeal should be dismissed.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

10. The main issue concerns the effect on the character and appearance of the property, of the terrace of which it is part, and of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.
11. Although this terrace has been much altered, and exhibits considerable variety in terms of elements such as the colour and texture of the external wall finishes, the form and opening arrangements of window frames, and the extent to which architectural detailing has been retained, there nevertheless remains an essential visual rhythm to the appearance of the group of properties at the eastern end of the terrace which includes the appeal property. This characteristic rhythm is provided by 4 main design elements which have for the most part been retained. These comprise the ground floor bay windows, the gabled elements rising above the eaves at 2^{\text {nd }} floor level, the basic pattern and size of the window openings within which the now varied window frames are fitted, and finally the regular punctuation of

the roofs by chimney stacks. That final element has been deliberately replicated in the recent past by the inclusion of chimneys in the new building at the eastern end of the terrace at No. 15. Although the chimneys on that building are of a lower height and different design than those on the 5 adjacent properties including the appeal building, they nevertheless serve to maintain the visual rhythm of the terrace. The fact that they have apparently been required by the Planning Authority at the time of building/rebuilding of No. 15, despite these being dummy chimneys which serve no smoke/fume dispersal function, is in my view telling as to the very considerable visual and design importance which the chimneys have as part of this terrace. With that context of importance, it is my assessment that a decision to approve the removal of the chimney stack subject of this appeal would do substantial harm to the character and appearance of the property, and particularly to the character and appearance of the terrace of which it is part and of the overall Conservation Area.

12. For those reasons, I concur with the Planning Authority's assessment of this proposal and with the further conclusions that the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan. With respect to the former, this proposal fails to respect the site and surroundings in terms of design, and would adversely affect the character of the locality and of the surrounding townscape. In the terms of Environment Policy 35, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, and would not ensure that the special features contributing to its character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

13. I also share the concerns of the Planning Authority about the precedent which a decision to approve this proposal could set for similar schemes. Comparable problems of damp are likely to exist at other properties where the chimneys have deteriorated and/or fallen out of use. Consequently, if the points about eradication of damp which are argued in this case were to be regarded as justifying the harm in character and appearance terms, it would become much more difficult for the Planning Authority to resist any future proposals where the same arguments were made. That could cumulatively result in even more substantial harm to this and other Conservation Areas, and also to properties outside Conservation Areas where the visual impact of losing chimneys may also be of significant importance. Whilst each case must be considered on its own merits, and those merits in this case are sufficient in themselves to justify dismissal of the appeal, the matter of the potential for a harmful precedent to be set adds some further weight against this particular proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

14. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect and that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval should be upheld.

Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI

Independent Inspector

Appeal No. AP14/0054

Page 3

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

[Signature]

.