31679

==== PAGE 1 ====

Cabinet Office Reference OF14/0024 Appllcatlor* No 14/OOS44/B Inspettor's report Application by the Department of Health & Social Care for: Installation of replacement windows to all elevations, Aingeville, 93 Woodbourne Road, Douglas IM2 SAW. Site Visit Monday 14'^ July 2014 Preamble

1. The application was referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Section 10(l)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 because the application was made by the Department of Infrastructure, Estates Shared Service, with respect to a building owned by that Department. Site and Development
2. The building is a sizeable, double bow-fronted Victorian vilia, with prominent attractive dentil cornices and window frames picked out in black against white render. It stands within the Woodbourne Conservation Area and is occupied as a care home. The application seeks to replace all the windows. Arch-headed, sliding sashes would be retained on the front and sides, but in white uPVC rather than timber, while conventional casements would be retained on the rear elevation and back addition, again in white uPVC. The front window spacing on the submitted drawing is not quite correct and nor does it show the dentil features, but the intentions are clear.
3. Application 12/01205/B, similarly for replacement windows, was withdrawn prior to determination, but would have been opposed by the Planning Officer essentially because the sash tops were to be replaced by infill panels rather than arch-headed windows. The officer's report proposed an informative confirming that the outcome was without prejudice to an application showing arch-headed windows. Gist of the Representations
4. The Planning Officer: the building is prominent and its sides visible in the street scene. The proposed replacements match existing window patterns, opening methods and glazing bar sections, including the historically accurate sashes to the front and sides. Retaining casements at the rear would perpetuate a somewhat unfortunate clash of styles; a "missed opportunity" perhaps but not a substantive reason for refusal. Similarly as regards the loss of black framing, which the applicant advises was on cost grounds, but as the existing windows could probably be repainted in any event, this too is not a substantive objection. Although omitted from the submitted drawing, there is no proposal to remove the decorative cornices. Inspector's Assessment

The main issue Is whether the new windows would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area in accordance with Strategic Plan Environment Policy 35 and having regard to guidance in Planning Circular 1/98 The Alteration and Replacement of Windows. 6. The Circular guidance with respect, as here, to non-Registered buildings in a Conservation Area is a preference for repair of original windows. However, it is not difficult to discern that those here have reached the end of their practical life, particularly in an institutional building. If repair is impracticable, the guidance requires that replacements readily visible from a public thoroughfare retain the original method of opening and, whatever the materials, the same pattern and section of glazing bars and frame sections. The replacements proposed for the publicly visible front and side elevations meet this guidance, crucially retaining the 1

==== PAGE 2 ====

Cabbet Office Reference DP14/0024 Application No 14/00544/8 Inspector's report distinctive arch-heads. The current black painted frames would be lost but all-white windows would not be at odds or detract from the building, which would retain black architectural detailing elsewhere. The back addition is plainly not original and features casement windows. It cannot be publicly seen and the replacements there would be a close match in all regards other than materials, more than meeting the guidance in this regard. 7. All told the proposals comply with the Circular guidance and would preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation Area. Recommendations _

---

I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions, based on those suggested by the Planning Officer.

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
2. No works are hereby approved or implied In respect of the existing decorative cornices on the application building.
3. The windows shall be replaced in accordance with the details shown on drawings 05/34 01; AINGEVILLE/01/02 and /03, and two untitled sheets showing the individual types, all received by the Department on 2'’" May 2014. Alan Latigton Inspector 2

==== PAGE 3 ====

STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY Isle of Man Government fif II t y f C 11 a II n II i u Planning statement on behalf of Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control In respect of a planning application for the: Installation of replacement windows to all elevations Aingeville 93 Woodbourne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3AW Reference 14/00544/B Statement prepared on behalf of DOI Planning and Building Control by Mr Edmond Riley BA (Hons) MA MSc 12 June 2014 14/00544/B Page 1 of 5

==== PAGE 4 ====

Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Department of Infrastructure's Estate Shared Services Division has made a pianning application seeking fuli planning approval for various alterations to a building currently occupied by various government officers within the Department of Infrastructure. The application has been submitted by an agent on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure; the agent is a private contractor. 1.1 This written statement is intended to assist the Inspector in making a recommendation to the Council of Ministers on what decision should be taken with respect to this application. The statement includes the following information in this order: 1.2 A description of the application site and the proposal; A description of the proposal; Summary of the relevant planning history; List of the planning policies that the Planning Authority believes are relevant to the consideration of the application; A summary of consultation responses received by the Planning Authority; The Planning Authority's own assessment of the proposal, having had regard to the main issues raised in respect of the proposal; Recommendation as to the decision that should be made on the application, and Suggested conditions if planning approval is granted. 2.0 THE SITE The application site is the curtilage of 93 Woodbourne Road, Douglas, which is known as "Aingeville" and located to the west of the highway. It is a residential care home, owned by the Department of Infrastructure of the Isle of Man Government. Aingevllle is within a Conservation Area and relatively prominent within the streetscene, although some sparse but mature trees line the front of the site. The black-framed windows and cornice detailing set against the white-painted render of the building present quite a stark and attractive contrast. 2.1 3.0 THE PROPOSAL Full planning approval is sought for replacement windows throughout the building. To the front (east) and side (north and south) elevations, the existing sliding sash windows will be replaced with white uPVC sliding sash windows within the main building; its rear outrider and rear (west) elevation is proposed to have its existing casement windows replaced with white uPVC casement windows. 3.1 The drawings are a little inaccurate inasmuch as the decorative cornice present on the building is not shown on the submitted plans, and it also seems to be the case that the distance between the outermost windows on the front (east) elevation and the side (north and south) elevations are different on the plan to reality. However, the nature of the proposed development is considered such as to make the submitted information sufficient on which to make a full and proper assessment of the proposal, and also to reach a decision. 3.2 12 June 2014 14/00544/B Page 2 of 5

==== PAGE 5 ====

TTie plans submitted comprise: 3.3 • Site & Locations Plans, carrying the reference 05/34 01; • Existing Plans & Elevations, carrying the reference 05/34 02; • Proposed Plans & Elevations, carrying the reference 05/34 03, and • Two sets of proposed replacement window drawings, carrying no reference. All of these plans were date-stamped as having been received by the Planning Authority on 2"'^ May 2014. 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of several historic planning applications, one of which is considered of relevance: • 12/01205/B - Installation of replacement windows - WITHDRAWN This application was withdrawn as the Planning Authority indicated that they would have refused the application for the following reason: "The introduction of curved infill panels as part of the replacement uPVC sliding sash windows is contrary to the provisions for replacement windows within Conservation Areas as set within Planning Circular 1/98. The use of such infill panels neither protects the character of the townscape nor preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area. As such the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." The draft officer report concluded with a recommendation to refuse, with the following paragraph added: "This refusal would be without prejudice to any subsequent planning application that proposed, and showed in appropriate detail, arch-head replacement windows. It is understood that window manufacturers are readily able to manufacture uPVC arch-head sliding sash windows." 5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 5.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. No Written Statement accompanies the Local Plan. The Strategic Plan contains one policy considered specifically material to the assessment of the current application. Environment Policy 35 reads in full: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." 5.2 Planning Circular 1/98, The alteration and replacement of windows, the policy for Category B 'buildings in conservation areas' states: "If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be 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". 5.3 12 June 2014 14/00544/B Page 3 of 5

==== PAGE 6 ====

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS No representations have been received at the time of writing - some six days beyond the ciose of the statutory 21-day consultation period. 6.1 7.0 ASSESSMENT The assessment essentially hinges upon the extent to which the proposed development is acceptable within the Conservation Area; the building is, as noted, prominent within the streetscene and its front and side elevations are visible from the streetscene. 7.1 7.2 Generally speaking, replacement windows that are proposed to match the pattern, opening method and section of glazing bars as existing windows will be supported. The proposed replacement windows, where these are readily visible from a public thoroughfare, do indeed match the historically accurate and appropriate sliding sash units. Although the proposed casement windows elsewhere would provide a somewhat unfortunate dash of styles, it is not considered that this could form a substantive reason for refusal - especially as the existing window frames are casement. This is perhaps best described as a 'missed opportunity' rather than fundamentally objectionable. A similar conclusion is made in respect of the loss of the black frames in the windows. The applicant was contacted to seek clarification as to why white was being sought; cost was the defining issue. The fact that the frames could probably be painted without the need for planning approval in any case limits the control the Planning Authority has on this matter - and the existing black-coloured cornice detailing is not proposed to be altered such that some of this interesting and attractive detail would, happily, remain. 7.3 7.4 On this final point, it considered appropriate to reflect on the incomplete drawings that have been submitted for the application, with the decorative cornice missing. If the Inspector is minded to recommend approval for the proposed works - replacement windows - it is considered that a condition indicating that the decorative cornices should remain would be worth recommending for any Approval issued. This would be for the avoidance of doubt. 8.0 CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS On balance, then, it is considered that the proposed alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is therefore recommended that approval should be granted subject to the standard time limit condition. The Inspector may aiso wish to give consideration to the condition in respect of the decorative cornices on Aingeville. 8.1 Condition 1: The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason; To comply with artide 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. 12 June 2014 14/00544/B Page 4 of 5

==== PAGE 7 ====

Condition 2: No works are hereby approved in respect of the decorative cornice that is currently in place on Aingeville but has not been shown on the submitted plans. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and for the avoidance of doubt. 8.2 For the purposes of clarity, the decision notice should make reference to the plan and document to which the decision reiates, as set out in paragraph 3.3 of this statement. 12 June 2014 14/00544/B Page 5 of 5