Appeal No: AP10/0186 Application No: 10/01475/B

Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal

Inquiry Held on: 3 March 2011.

Site inspection on: 28 February 2011.

Appeal by Colefax Ltd against refusal of planning approval for: "Replace existing wooden windows with UPVC double glazed units" at 5 Market Place, Peel IM5 1AB.

Present: Mr John Cleator Director, Colefax Ltd Mr Stephen Stanley Planning Officer, DoI. Mr Stephen Moore Conservation Officer, DoI.

Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and of the development subject to the appeals. The cases for the appeal parties are summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation then follow.

Site and Surroundings 2. The appeal property fronts on to the west side of Market Place. The property is a three storey building with a central door in the front elevation and windows placed symmetrically on either side and above. Behind the appeal site is the site of the ruined St Peter's Church. The windows are PVC framed hinged casement type, as shown in the photographs in the case file.

3. On the opposite side of Market Place is a car park and public toilets. The building at No 6 Market Place, adjacent to the appeal building to the north, has white PVC framed front windows of sliding sash type, all but one of which have imitation "horns" on the bottom corners of the upper sash. The building south-west of the appeal site, labelled with the number 2 on the submitted location map, has what appear to be "imitation sash" windows in brown PVC in its front elevation.

4. Although there are variations, the majority of the frontage windows in the streets around the appeal site, such as Lake Lane or at the other end of Market Place where the Peel Castle Hotel has a quite prominent frontage facing south, are of sliding sash type. Window styles vary considerably in the rear elevations of nearby buildings, notably in the rear of the buildings which back on to the car park.

Proposed Development 5. The application sought retrospective approval for the windows which have been installed - a note was added to the description of the development in the application form stating: "Work has been completed but apparently not in line with original application".

1

Case for Appellant

6. The main points made for the appellant company are, in summary:

• The new windows enhance the look of the building and do not detract from its character. Neighbours and others have complimented the development.
• The ground floor windows were not sliding sash type when the appellant acquired the property, but were combined awning (top-opening casement) and fixed windows.
• Each building in the area is unique and no standard applies. It is not clear what "original" means in this context. Glazing bars in old buildings were originally thick.
• The windows which were replaced were unusable and unsafe. The new windows are an improvement and are sympathetic to the area.
• The premises at No 5 Market Place are working offices. Windows need to be efficient and effective at preventing noise and disturbance, protecting against weather and pollution, and serving the needs of clients and visitors for the benefit of the town.

Case for Planning Authority

7. The planning authority make the following main submissions:

• The appeal property is in the Peel Conservation Area. Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan applies, also the Peel Written Statement 1989 and Circular 1/98.
• Planning approval was granted for replacement windows in 2010. The approved windows would have been UPVC sliding sash, which would have replicated the method of opening and glazing bar details of the original windows. The windows installed do not do so.
• The windows are inappropriate to the building and do not preserve or enhance the amenities of the area, contrary to relevant policy.

Assessment and Conclusions

8. The appeal property is in a fairly prominent position in a designated conservation area. Therefore a key point arising from this appeal is whether the windows which have been installed preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, having particular regard to Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan. Under this policy, only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area will be permitted.
9. As noted in my description above, there are different styles of windows in the buildings in and around Market Place, and there is certainly no consistency of design in the rear of the buildings which back rather unattractively on to the car park opposite the appeal site. But it is primarily the front elevations which give the area its historic character; and the majority of the front elevations in the vicinity of the appeal site have sliding sash windows, reflecting the period in which they were built.
10. The outer frames and the glazing bars in the unauthorised windows are much thicker than is typical of sliding sash windows, and the same applies when comparing what has been installed with what is shown in the drawings subject to the 2010 approval.

The windows installed also lack the differential depth between upper and lower sashes which is characteristic of sliding sash windows. The windows are of a type and design which might be acceptable in a modern housing estate or office building; but here they are out of place. They contrast undesirably with the windows which have been installed at the neighbouring property, No 6 Market Place, and they make no attempt to reflect the character or age of the appeal property or of the wider conservation area.

11. There is some room for debate about the intended meaning of the term "original" when interpreting the planning authority's argument that replacement windows must have the same method of opening as the original windows. The front windows at the appeal premises were apparently in poor condition and they did not all have sliding sash-type openings. The appellant company's desire to improve temperature and sound insulation is understandable, and in some respects the windows installed are an improvement - at least they are all of a reasonably consistent style. That does not make them acceptable from a conservation policy viewpoint.

12. Mr Cleator, for the appellant company, has criticised the planning authority for not intervening to stop the development while it was being carried out, although a planning officer apparently saw the windows being installed. It is obviously unfortunate that development was carried out not in accordance with the 2010 approval, but the appellant company was responsible for doing so. Staff of the planning authority evidently acted very quickly (within the same day) to contact the company about the unauthorised nature of the development, and it is misguided for the company to try to pass blame or responsibility elsewhere.

13. The appellant's suggestion that glazing bars were thicker on older properties, to reduce window tax, has little weight. There is no evidence that No 5 Market Place was originally built with windows having thick glazing bars.

14. In summary, I agree with the comment made for the planning authority during the inquiry that this is a classic example of "how not to do it". The development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and conflicts with the aims of adopted policy. I conclude that the authority's decision to refuse approval should be confirmed.

15. If approval were to be granted, the standard time-limit condition (condition No 1 as set out in Part 3 of the authority's statement) would not be appropriate as the approval would be retrospective. Condition No 2 (re-numbered as No 1) would be appropriate in the interests of clarity.

Recommendation

16. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

[Signature]

Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI

Inspector

8 March 2011