Appeal Inspector's Report

APPEAL: AP19/0017 PLANNING APPLICATION: 19/00001/B

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure Site Inspection: Friday 26 July 2019 Appeal made by Ms L M A Norman, Chris Norman Enterprises Limited, against the refusal of a planning application for the removal of a chimney stack at The White House, 1 Drury Terrace, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM2 3HY. Appeal Site and Surroundings

• 1. The appeal site is The White House, No 1 Drury Terrace, Douglas. The building is a prominent, end of terrace, 4-storey, Victorian dwellinghouse located on the corner of Drury Terrace and Princes Avenue, almost opposite the junction of Marathon Road. Drury Terrace slopes upwards to the north west, whilst Princes Avenue slopes downwards to the south west. The appeal building curves around the corner of the two roads and there is a conical-shaped corner section of the roof with chimneys visible.
• 2. The chimney stacks on both street elevations are visible from a distance and No1 has four existing chimney stacks in total. Two are nearest to the adjoining property at No2 Drury Terrace and there is one large stack midway along the roof, facing Princes Avenue. Another is positioned at the gable elevation, which adjoins the rear access lane to the terrace.
• 3. There are chimney stacks located between each of the properties running upwards along Drury Terrace and similar stacks, stepping downwards, along Princes Avenue. All of the stacks are roughly the same size and each of the end-of-terraced properties, including the appeal house, has additional stacks toward the rear and side elevations. These are noticeably larger than the mid-terrace chimney stacks.
• 4. The White House lies within the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area (CA). The character appraisal of the CA states:

‘the majority of the terraces fronting onto Ballaquayle Road were built during the late nineteenth century and the progression downhill towards the sea is marked by the regular rhythm of splayed bay windows, gable peaks, decorative iron railings and other good quality Victorian detailing. The common use of materials and detailing serves to unify the group of terraces which makes a strong contribution to this main entrance to town’.

The Proposal

• 5. Approval is sought for the removal of the large chimney stack adjoining the main body of the building and centrally located on the roof nearest to Princes Avenue. No detailed plan was submitted but the appeal chimney stack is clearly indicated photographically.

Planning Background

• 6. The appeal property was the subject of a previous application, Ref PA 07/00451/B, approved in 2007 for the removal of another chimney stack.
• 7. There has also been an application, Ref PA 14/00788/B, for the removal of chimney stacks from the property at the opposite end of the terrace, Clifton. This was refused in 2014 for the reason that the chimney stacks to the terrace form an important element of the character of this wellmaintained and prominent terrace, which has retained the majority of its original period detailing, and its loss would detract from its architectural appeal.
• 8. The Planning Authority refers to two other applications to remove existing chimney stacks in CAs with no replacements proposed. The first was under Ref PA 15/01198/B at the Commercial Hotel, Ramsey. This was approved on appeal. The Inspector concluded that, due to its poor state, including surrounding vegetation, it gave the area a forlorn and neglected look. It was considered that removal of the chimney stack would improve the appearance of the CA. The second, under Ref PA 14/00683/B, at 18 Kensington Road, Douglas was refused on appeal. In that case, the Inspector concluded that the chimneys contributed significantly to the rhythm of the properties within the terrace and streetscene. It was considered that their removal would substantially harm the character of the CA and could set an unacceptable precedent for further removals.

Planning Policy

• 9. The policy most relevant to the present appeal is Environment Policy 35 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (SP). This permits only development within CAs which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and ensure that the special features contributing to its character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

The Case for the Planning Authority

The material points are: Main Issue

• 10. The issue in this case is whether the removal of the chimney stack would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area, in accordance with Environment Policy 35.

Assessment

• 11. Chimney stacks can add significantly to the character of a property and the wider area, and their removal can often be controversial, given that their significance is a matter of subjective opinion.
• 12. In this case of a property situated at the end of a terrace and on a corner plot, both elevations contribute to the character of the street scene, allowing unobstructed views of the roofscape.

• 13. There is a notable size difference between the each of the chimney stacks on the appeal property, with the stack proposed for removal being by far the tallest. From Princes Avenue the stack appears slightly out of context, especially following the approved permanent removal of another stack in

1. However, when the property is viewed from the junction of Marathon Road opposite, the height of the disputed chimney stack makes it visible above the roof capping at the corner and results in the stack appearing visually consistent with the mid-terrace chimney stacks running along Clifton Terrace.

• 14. It is often the case that such chimney stacks deteriorate physically over time. It is then preferable that they be repaired and maintained but, where evidence is provided of structural instability, it may be acceptable to remove the original stack and replace it with a false replica, to ensure that the character of the area is preserved.
• 15. In the present case, there is little information provided to justify the permanent removal of the chimney stack. The application also failed to demonstrate why repair or replacement is not practicable.
• 16. The historic application for Clifton raised concern that any approval for the removal of stacks could set a precedent for neighbouring property owners to apply similarly for the permanent removal of their chimney stacks, a collective loss of which would have a detrimental impact on the wider character of the designated CA.
• 17. In this instance, taking into account that one chimney stack has already been permanently removed, the loss of a further stack without sufficient justification would result in an unacceptable and harmful visual impact on the overall historic and architectural character of the streetscene of the Ballaquayle Road CA, failing to preserve or enhance its character or appearance, in line with EP35 of the Strategic Plan.

Conclusion

• 18. For the above reasons, bearing in mind that the Appellants have failed to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate an overriding need for the disputed chimney stack to be permanently removed, the appeal should be dismissed.

The Case for the Appellants The material points are:

• 19. There have been damp and water patches in the hallway of the top flat of the property for over three years. Builders have advised that this is due to the deterioration of the chimney stack now subject to appeal. Some work has been undertaken in an attempt to solve the problem. It was hoped that, over time, the damp and wet patches would dry out but this did not occur. The damaged area has had repeatedly to be repainted. The Appellants submit invoices for the work carried out representing expenditure of around £300 to £400 in connection with the chimney stack.

• 20. The Appellants do not like to remove the chimney stacks and for that reason delayed making the original application. However, the upkeep of the chimney is proving expensive so, on balance, removal, although also costly, is required to solve the problem.
• 21. Since the removal of the chimney stack in 2007, there have been no problems of damp in that part of the property.
• 22. The Appellants request the Minister to reconsider the refusal and allow the appeal.

Other Representations

• 23. Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the proposal. Assessment by the Inspector Planning Issue
• 24. The sole main issue in this appeal is whether the removal of the chimney stack in question would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area and, if not, whether there is overriding justification for the approval sought.

Appraisal

• 25. I note that the Appellants are themselves reluctant to remove the chimney stack and, on inspection, I agree with the Planning Authority, for the reasons set out in its case against the appeal above, that the disputed stack makes a significant visual contribution to the appearance of Drury Terrace and the Ballaquayle Road CA as a whole. Its removal would upset the architectural rhythm of the Terrace from many views along Drury Terrace itself, from Princes Avenue and from Marathon Road. This would harm the appearance and character of the Terrace and the CA as a whole, which would accordingly not be preserved. This places the proposal in unacceptable conflict with EP35 of the SP.
• 26. I recognise that a former chimney stack was removed from the same property in 2007 with planning approval, resulting in benefit to internal property maintenance. I also note that the removal of a chimney stack from Clifton, at the other end of the Terrace was refused in 2014 for visual reasons. Like the other two examples quoted by the Planning Authority, in Kensington Road, Douglas and in Ramsey, these cases were determined on individual merit, as must the present appeal.
• 27. I note with understanding the potentially higher cost of retaining the chimney stack and the substantial expenditure so far made by the Appellants in attempting repairs to resolve damp and water penetration attributed to the deterioration of the chimney structure. However, the mere cost, although unfortunate, does not amount to an overriding

• planning justification for the removal of the chimney stack in the face of the significant planning objection I have identified above.
• 28. In the absence of reasoned and documented specialist evidence that the chimney stack cannot be retained, I conclude that the appeal should fail and the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application be upheld.
• 29. In the event that approval were granted, it should be subject to the condition, suggested without prejudice by the Planning Authority, that all facing and roofing materials match those of the existing building.

Recommendation

• 30. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.
• 31. If, however, the Minister decides to allow the appeal, I suggest that approval be made subject to the conditions set out in the schedule appended to this Report.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

6 August 2019

APPENDIX Suggested conditions to be imposed if the Minister decides to grant planning approval

• 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 Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2) All external facing and roofing materials to be used shall match those of the existing building.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the appearance and character of the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area.