22 May 2009 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated authority)
14, Mona Street, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 2qd
The proposal sought permission to retain an unauthorised uPVC box-framed window installed over the basement lightwell at 14 Mona Street, a three-storey terraced dwellinghouse converted to apartments, to serve as a fire escape for the basement flat.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer concluded the uPVC glazed box window is 'rather large and bulky in appearance compared to the previous lightweight timber structure' and that 'the window and the lead flashing obscure the …
General Policy 2
General Policy 2 (from Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007) requires development to respect local character; the officer found the bulky uPVC box window adversely affects visual amenities of the streetscene in a Victorian terrace, failing the policy test. Specific tension arose from the proposal's retrospective nature and material choice conflicting with conservation priorities.
Environment Policy 35
ENV35 permits only development which preserves or enhances Conservation Area character, protecting special features; assessed against the Windsor Road Conservation Area's 'disciplined formal layout of Victorian Terraces'. The box window was deemed inappropriate as it introduces a modern, incongruous element harming the area's appearance, despite applicant claims of enhancement via upgrade from rotting timber.
no objection to the proposals
The original application PA 09/00413/R for retention of a boxed basement lightwell window to serve as a fire escape was refused by the Planning Committee, primarily because the uPVC window was considered bulky, prominent, and harmful to the character of the Windsor Road Conservation Area under Strategic Plan General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35. The appellant argued low visibility, precedents at nos 26 and 28 Mona Street, fire safety needs, and existence of prior uPVC permissions. The inspector found the window's visual impact low due to screening, no significant difference between uPVC and timber alternatives, and unusual circumstances including the building's existing uPVC windows and lack of specific policy on basement replacements. The appeal was allowed as a finely balanced case not setting precedent for uPVC use, with permission granted subject to a condition tying it to specific drawings and photos.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows that site-specific unusual circumstances—like low visibility, fire safety needs, and existing non-traditional materials—can justify uPVC in conservation areas on a 'finely balanced' basis, but explicitly does not set precedent for widespread use. Future applicants should gather evidence on visibility, alternatives' failings, and building context while avoiding test cases for policy relaxation.
Inspector: David Bushby
