Loading document...
The site, defined in drawing reference 15939/01, represents the curtilage of Arbory Primary School, located on the northern side of the main road which runs between Ballabeg and Colby.
The site is designated as Primary School on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan.
Previously planning permission was refused for the installation of replacement windows. PA 02/1601 proposed the installation of aluminium framed windows with sliding sash and casement windows. The Inspector reporting on this application, which was approved by the Planning Committee and taken to appeal by Mr. Cringle of School Cottage, concluded that "the proposed replacement windows and doors would, in the circumstances where repair and renovation of the existing is practicable, be harmful to the character of this attractive building" (his paragraph 20). At the appeal, the
representative of the applicant stated that the windows were capable of repair and that the objective was to reduce maintenance costs.
This latest application proposes the replacement of all 9 of the windows in the front elevation and the door in the rear of the eastern part of the building. The windows in the rear – four in the eastern side of the building which were proposed for replacement in the previous application, are not included in this application.
The new windows are to be wooden framed but not sliding sash. What are presently sliding sash will have a similar appearance but a casement opening lower light.
There is an objection from Mr. Cringle of Strathallan, Main Road whose objection relates to the fact that three windows and one door on the western elevation are not included in the application. He also refers to the fact that these windows are in plastic and had the existing softwood frames been maintained renewal would not be necessary. I am not sure which windows are being referred to: there were no windows included in the previous application in the western elevation and the proposed replacements are to be in wood, not plastic.
The report accompanying the application suggests that the existing timber-framed sliding sash windows have been replaced and repaired at some time, possibly following the failure of the sliding sash mechanisms. The bottom lights now open inwards rather than slide. The report goes on to advise that the condition of the windows varies, some windows experiencing rot and breakdown. The applicant explains that the Inspector misdirected the statement that the windows were capable of repair: this was stated by the appellant not the applicant and the applicant was always of the view that the windows were NOT capable of repair.
The applicant states that the windows will be the same method of opening as the existing. I think this refers to the more modern replacement of the lower sash with hinged casements although it is not clear if the lower sashes are actually hinged or if they can be set into a secondary frame which opens inward. All the photographs show the windows in the closed position so it is difficult to tell.
I have asked the applicant for clarification of the missing windows and the style of opening. Simple casement lower lights will not replicate what presently exists.
The applicant has provided an additional drawing which clarifies that the top rail of the bottom opening sash will overlap with the bottom rail of the top, fixed light thus presenting the appearance of a sliding sash whilst closed and employing the same opening style as the existing windows, which also slide up and down. This satisfies me that the proposed windows will not adversely affect the appearance of the building and satisfy the provisions of Planning Circular 1/98.
The applicant has also clarified that the windows which are referred to by the objector are on the western side of the building and are not part of the maintenance programme.
I recommend that the application should be approved and that G. Cringle who submitted his views within the appointed period, should be afforded party status to the application on the basis that he as afforded party status in respect of PA 02/1601 which applies to the same site as this.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the replacement of the existing windows in the elevation facing the main road as shown in drawings reference 15939/02A received on 5th January, 2006, 15939/01 received on 17th November, 2005.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 7/2/06
Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown