Inspector's Report DF06/0018

Crown Division Government Offices Douglas Isle of Man

31 January 2007

The Council of Ministers

Sirs

CASE REFERENCE DF/06/0018 PLANNING APPLICATION 06/019127/B

Application by Manx Housing Trust for the installation of UPVC sliding sash windows to front and UPVC casement windows to rear to replace existing at 37 Allan Street, Douglas, IM1 3DP

1. I have the honour to report that on 15 January 2007 I carried out a site visit into the above application. This report contains the gist of the cases made by the applicant and the Planning Authority, my assessment of the proposal and a recommendation of the decision which might be made in the case. The application falls to be determined by the Council of Ministers as a result of the land being in the ownership of the Department of Local Government and the Environment.

THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

1. The application premises are a mid terrace house in Allan Street, one of several streets of 19th Century terraced houses in this part of Douglas. It and its neighbours are run down, as are a significant proportion of dwellings in the locality. However, others, particularly in the adjacent Parr Street are in good condition, having apparently been modernised in recent years.

1. The front of the dwelling has timber framed windows, with a lightweight section painted brown. At the ground floor the single window has an upper opening quarter light. At the first floor the windows are divided equally horizontally, with top light appearing to open from a top hinge. These windows are painted brown. At the rear the house has a typical layout with a two storey outlet to the rear of the main house. Windows in the main house are similar to those in the upper storey of the front. Those in the outlet are of more recent dimension, being wider than they are high, with vertical divisions and side hung opening lights. All rear windows are timber, again of lightweight section, painted white.

1. None of the windows appeared to me to be double glazed.

1. Adjacent properties to left and right show minor differences in elevational treatment, such as the size and detailing of window openings. Both have had PVC framed windows fitted, all of which divide the openings equally, and as such are reminiscent of the sash windows which would have been fitted originally. At their rear there have been some replacements carried out, in a variety of styles. Many properties nearby have had replacement windows fitted, such that these are now the predominant type.

1. The proposal is to replace all windows with PVC framed windows of the same general layout, as shown on the plans. To the front the plan shows only one design of window, which is the sliding sash window “look alike” replacement. It is stated that 3 would be used, sized to fit existing openings from which it can be inferred that the uncharacteristic design of the ground floor window would not be replicated. To the rear, the existing designs would be replicated.

Evidence By The Director Of Planning & Building Control

The material points are:

1. Planning Circular 1/98 – The Alteration and Replacement of Windows states in paragraph 8 that “Replacement windows should preferably be the same as or similar to the originals in the pattern of the glazing bars. However, providing the glazing pattern is retained, a more relaxed approach will be taken to the replacement of windows in such properties”.

1. The application site is not in a Conservation Area, nor is it a registered building. Other properties in the street have uPVC windows, and the proposed replacements would have similar glazing bars to those which exist. The proposal was within the spirit of Planning Circular 1/98.

1. Permission was recommended, subject to conditions relating to the commencement of development, and specifying the drawings to which the permission relates.

Other Evidence

1. No Evidence other than the plans is submitted by the applicant. No other parties have been consulted. The plans show the adjoining end terrace property, No 35 Allan Street, as being in the same ownership.

Inspector’S Conclusions

1. The main consideration in this case is the effect of the replacement windows on the character of the building and the street scene.

1. Planning Circular 1/98 states, more fully than quoted by the Planning Authority, that:

Policy

Replacement windows should preferably be the same as or similar to the originals in the pattern of the glazing bars. However, providing the glazing pattern is retained, a more relaxed approach will be taken to the replacement of windows in such properties.

Reasons for Policy: The aim is to encourage simulation of the original glazing pattern, and this will apply particularly to buildings which are part of a larger group, such as a terrace, where replacement windows, if carefully designed, may serve to enhance the overall appearance of the group.

1. To my mind the reference to “originals” in the circular means the window style which would have been incorporated in the building when first constructed. Those in the front and rear elevations of the property as it stands now are not the originals. Those in the outlet where the openings are of modern appearance can be replaced with similar windows without harm to the policy.

1. Where the window openings are the original ones, the main dimensions of the replacement windows would have the same frame layout as the originals, with vertical sliding sashes of equal proportions. However, they would lack a vertical glazing bar divinding each pane which there would almost certainly have been in the originals. Such divisions are incorporated in the replacement windows used in the adjoining building to the left, but not in that to the right. To my mind the incorporation of such a vertical division is normally unsuccessful, because it does not actually divide the pane, may often fail to remain fully vertical, and may not remain straight. Bearing in mind that the building is neither listed nor in a Conservation Area, it is my view that the design proposed would be appropriate to this situation, and would serve to enhance the group as a whole.

1. The Department’s evidence recommends planning conditions which limit the life of the permission, and specify the drawings to which the permission relates. Both are necessary.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions noted above.

David Ward BSc (Hons) CEng MICE FIHT Inspector