04/02346/CONRefused

27 April 2005 · Planning Committee

Replace existing windows with tilt sliding sash Upvc windows (to be considered in association with PA04/02346/GB)

Point Of Ayre Lighthouse, Cranstal, Bride, Isle Of Man, IM7 4bs

Received13 Jan 2005

Validated11 Nov 2004

Committee15 Apr 2005

Decided27 Apr 2005

3 months

Received13 Jan 2005

Validated11 Nov 2004

Committee15 Apr 2005

Decided27 Apr 2005

3 months

Why was this refused?

Material incompatibility of uPVC with historic timber
Failure to match slim frame sections and glazing bars
Lack of justification for replacement over repair
Detrimental impact on registered building character
Policy RB5 presumption against harmful alterations
Availability of grant aid for traditional repairs

The proposal sought registered building consent to replace the existing painted timber sliding sash windows with modern tilt sliding sash uPVC windows at Lighthouse, Cranstal, Bride, Ramsey (RB No: 147). The building is part of the historic Point of Ayre lighthouse complex designed by Robert Stevenson in 1818.

Refusal Reasons

✗By reason of their material and style the proposed windows are considered to be out of keeping with the building and to detrimentally alter the character of a Registered Building contrary to the provisions of Policy RB5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. Accordingly, the proposed development is unacceptable.

Documents (5)

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused27 April 2005

The Planning Committee refused the application because 'by reason of their material and style the proposed windows are considered to be out of keeping with the building and to detrimentally alter the …

Public Comments (2)

SupportBride Parish Commissioners(parish)

nothing further to add to previous - still approve plans

SupportHighways Division, Department of Transport(statutory consultee)

no views on the application, the application having been considered and having no adverse traffic impacts

View on map →

People

Anthony Holmes

Case Officer

Everest Ltd, Unit 11B South Quay Industrial Estate Douglas

Agent

Key Information

Reference: 04/02346/CON
Decision: Refused
Date: 27 April 2005
Parish: Bride
Year: 2005
Type: Discharge of Conditions
Category: Conservation
Scale: minor

Property Details

Property Type: dwelling
Proposal Type: alteration
Context: rural
Heritage: registered building

Property Planning History (6)

19/00796/GBApproved2019

Alterations and installation of replacement windows (in association with PA 19/00797/CON)

19/00797/CONApproved2019

Registered Building consent for alterations, installation of replacement windows, internal works adn refurbishment (in association with 19/00796/GB) Registered Building Nos. 147

06/00396/GBApproved2006

Installation of timber sliding sash windows to replace existing (In association with 06/00471CON)

06/00471/CONApproved2006

Registered Building Consent for the installation of timber sliding sash windows to replace existing (In association with 06/00396GB)

04/02346/CONRefused2005Viewing

Replace existing windows with tilt sliding sash Upvc windows (to be considered in association with PA04/02346/GB)

04/02346/GBRefused2004

Replace existing windows with tilt sliding sash Upvc windows (to be considered in association with PA04/02346/CON)

Why was this refused?

Material incompatibility of uPVC with historic timber

Failure to match slim frame sections and glazing bars

Lack of justification for replacement over repair

Detrimental impact on registered building character

Policy RB5 presumption against harmful alterations

Availability of grant aid for traditional repairs

Refusal Reasons

✗By reason of their material and style the proposed windows are considered to be out of keeping with the building and to detrimentally alter the character of a Registered Building contrary to the provisions of Policy RB5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01. Accordingly, the proposed development is unacceptable.