154143

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal: AP17/0030 Planning Application: 17/00404/B

APPEAL: AP17/0030 PLANNING APPLICATION: 17/00404/B

Report on a Planning Appeal being dealt with by the written procedure

Site inspection: 25 September 2017

Appeal made by Mr Phil Donnelly against the refusal of a planning application for the erection of a single storey conservatory on the south east facing balcony at Bridge Cottage, Bridge Street, Castletown.

The site and its surroundings

1. Bridge Cottage is a 2-storey dwelling next to Bridge House. It adjoins the quayside on the north side of Castletown harbour.

2. The cottage stands at right angles to the waters edge; one gable end faces towards the pedestrian bridge that crosses the harbour, the other gable end faces towards Bridge Street. On the cottage’s rear elevation, facing towards the seaward entrance to the harbour, there is a full-length elevated terrace 6m long and 2.5m wide. A small (2m x 2.5m) sun room has been built at the end of the terrace furthest from the harbour. Access to the sun room and the terrace is through a pair of French doors on the cottage’s rear elevation. There is another window on the same elevation.

3. The appeal site lies within the historic heart of the Castletown Conservation Area. Much of the conservation area’s character derives from the close relationship of the harbour, the quay and Castle Rushen; all of which are within 100m of Bridge Cottage.

The proposed development

4. The appellant wants to build a conservatory next to the small sun room that already exists. Together, both structures would stretch across the cottage’s entire rear elevation, and the terrace would be completely built upon.

5. The proposed 6m x 2.5m conservatory would have a shallow lean-to roof. The glass on its roof and walls would have white uPVC frames.

The case for the Planning Authority

6. The existing small sun room was erected many years ago when Bridge Cottage was converted from an office into a dwelling. It is an insignificant structure that has little effect on the character of the cottage or the surrounding conservation area. The proposed conservatory, however, would be much bigger. It would occupy all of the open space that remains on the rear terrace and it would obscure views of the window and French doors on the cottage’s rear wall. The window and doors are historic fenestration features of Bridge Cottage, and they make a significant contribution to the conservation area’s character. The fact that they could no longer be seen would be harmful.

7. The application was therefore refused for the following reason:

The proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the Castletown Conservation Area and consequently fails to meet the needs of Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal: AP17/0030 Planning Application: 17/00404/B

8. It is accepted that there are other conservatory-style structures within close proximity to Bridge Cottage. For example, there is a greenhouse-style structure on the roof of Ellan Vannin, a Registered Building on the opposite side of the harbour to Bridge Cottage. There is no planning history for this, but there is evidence that it was in place prior to 1984 when Ellan Vannin was being considered for registration. There is also a new timber-framed glazed structure that is part of a Costa coffee shop on the harbourside opposite Bridge Cottage. This was recently granted approval on the basis that it would improve and enhance the amenities and character of the conservation area. Neither of these 2 examples is comparable with the proposed conservatory at Bridge Cottage. Each case should be considered on its own merits.

Other representations received

9. The Castletown Commissioners have not commented on the proposal.

10. Highway Services have indicated that there is no highways interest in the proposed development.

11. DEFA’s Inland Fisheries Development Manager has confirmed that he has no concerns in relation to the proposed development.

The case for the appellant

12. The proposed conservatory on the rear terrace of Bridge Cottage would not detract from the overall streetscape to any greater degree than other glazed structures that have been approved nearby, for example the greenhouse on the roof of Ellan Vannin and the timber-framed structure at the Costa coffee shop. Furthermore, the proposed conservatory would not have an adverse visual effect on Bridge House, the adjoining property.

13. It is disputed that the window and French doors on the rear elevation of Bridge Cottage significantly contribute to the conservation area; a view held by the Planning Authority. It is the cottage as a whole that makes a contribution to the conservation area.

14. For the above reasons, the Planning Authority’s decision to refuse the application should be overturned, and planning approval granted.

Inspector’s assessment

15. I consider that the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed conservatory would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Castletown Conservation Area.

16. Bridge Cottage, and the sun room that has been built on its rear terrace, are visible from the quayside and the pedestrian bridge across the harbour; places where people spend time enjoying Castletown’s historic character. The sun room is not eye-catching because of its small size and set-back position. However, the proposed conservatory would occupy all the remaining space on the rear terrace, right up to the harbour wall and the water’s edge. To my mind, the conservatory’s waterside location, prominent height, expanses of glass and white uPVC frames would be incongruous when seen in the context of Bridge Cottage, the neighbouring Bridge House and the many other nearby historic buildings. The window and French doors in the cottage’s rear elevation would no longer be clearly visible because the conservatory would stand in front of them; this, too, would be unfortunate.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal: AP17/0030 Planning Application: 17/00404/B

17. Environment Policy 35 of the IoMSP seeks to preserve or enhance conservation areas. In my view, the character and appearance of the Castletown Conservation Area would be neither preserved nor enhanced by the erection of the proposed conservatory because of its large size, incongruous materials and prominent elevated location. In reaching this conclusion I have been mindful of the other conservatory- style structures within sight of Bridge Cottage; some more harmful than others. But each proposal has to be considered on its own merits, as I have done in this particular case.

18. In the light of the above, I have reached the view that the Planning Authority’s decision to refuse the application was the right one.

Recommendation

19. 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. If the Minister were to take an opposite view and decide to grant planning approval I have suggested a condition at the end of this Report that I consider should be attached to the decision notice.

Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI Independent Inspector

6 October 2017

Suggested condition if the Minister decides to grant planning approval

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.

Approved plans (date-stamped 7 April 2017)

· Drwg No 0805/PP/01 · Drwg No 0805/PP/02 · Drwg No 0805/PP/03