DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01544/B Applicant: Mr David Trustrum Proposal: Installation of replacement windows to front and rear elevations, and replacement rear door. Site Address: Epworth 3 Church Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AH Technical Officer: Mr Thomas Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.02.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposal fails to comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01, as it affects adversely the character of the surrounding townscape and will not preserve or enhance the proposed Conservation Area's character or appearance. The proposal is also against the guidance in Planning Circular 1/98, as the front elevation windows do not have the same method of opening as the originals. It is therefore judged to be unacceptable.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Epworth, a mid-terrace three storey property dating from the 1890s/1900s, within the village's proposed Conservation Area. The property is typical of the late Victorian style, with a slate pitched roof, a rhythmic pattern to the windows and doors, and a smooth render wall finish with moulding details around the openings. On the Church Road elevation, the property has feature dormers that interrupt the eaves line and sit directly on the main front wall. The terrace is set back from the highway with enclosed front gardens. - 1.2 The windows on the property's Church Road elevation are painted timber sliding sash. The rear windows are generally painted timber sliding sash, although one first floor window is a three over three casement unit, with frames in painted timber.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application proposes to replace the existing timber windows with UPVC casement units. Generally the units will be top opening casements with false sash horns. The front elevation second floor arched windows are to be replaced with UPVC bottom opening casement units. The existing rear elevation first floor casement window is to be replaced with a UPVC casement unit. - 2.2 Also proposed is to replace the existing vertical panelled timber door with a UPVC door that is glazed in its upper and lower sections.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as mixed use and within the village's Proposed Conservation Area where Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and to take into account in any decision, the special character of the area. - 3.2 Also, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is relevant: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.

3.3 Environment Policy 34 expresses a preference for the use of traditional materials in the maintenance, extension or alteration of pre-1920 buildings. - 3.4 Planning Circular 1/98 provides guidance on the replacement of windows and in Conservation Areas states that whatever the frame material, the method of opening on windows visible by the public must replicate the original.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 There is no planning history on the Department's electronic database regarding the property.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS. - 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division has stated that they do not oppose the application (27.1.2021).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed windows preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the proposed Conservation Area in which the property sits taking into account the special character of the area. Whilst the Conservation Area is not yet adopted so the full force of Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 cannot properly be applied to this development, it is important that development does not prejudice the future designation of the Conservation Area by allowing something that could be viewed as harmful. - 6.2 The proposed Conservation Area boundary has clearly been drawn to specifically include the terrace within which the property sits, and it follows that the terrace was judged to make a positive contribution to the proposed Conservation Area. The terrace dates from the 1890s/1900s, and is in a typical style for properties of this type from the era. Somewhat unusually, the timber sliding sash windows have all survived on each of the properties in the terrace. With their rhythmic pattern, feature moulding surrounds and traditional materials, it is judged that the front elevation windows clearly contribute positively to the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area. The proposed replacement of these windows

• with UPVC casement units will not preserve or enhance the proposed Conservation Area's character or appearance, and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01. The proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2, as it fails to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the design of the building, and affects adversely the character of the surrounding townscape.
• 6.3 The proposed replacement windows have a different method of opening to the existing. On the front elevation this is a clear departure from the guidance in Planning Circular 1/98, which states that replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same method of opening as the originals.
• 6.4 The proposed replacement rear door is of a different style and material to the existing. Whilst this is contrary to Environment Policy 34, the door is not readily visible from a public thoroughfare and cannot reasonably be judged to contribute to the proposed Conservation Area's character or appearance. On balance, the replacement rear door on its own would therefore be judged to be acceptable.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 It is concluded that the proposal fails to comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 as it affects adversely the character of the surrounding townscape and will not preserve or enhance the proposed Conservation Area's character or appearance. The proposal is also against the guidance in Planning Circular 1/98, as the front elevation windows do not have the same method of opening as the originals. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 11.02.2021

Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.