Erection of a replacement detached dwelling and associated detached garage, greenhouse and workshop

Refusal Reasons

• ✗By virtue of the extensive use of black metal, particularly on the proposed dwelling but throughout the application site, the proposed development would not be in keeping with the surrounding buildings which give the Silverdale Conservation Area its special character. The new development would change the character of this part of the Conservation Area in a harmful way, and its character and appearance would neither be preserved nor enhanced. The proposed development would therefore fail the statutory test set out in Section 18(4) of the Act; and it would also conflict with Strategic Policy 4(a) and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗By virtue of the extensive use of black metal, the proposed development would not respect the design of the existing buildings around it or the materials used in the local area. It would therefore fail to take account of the character and identity of the immediate locality and so conflict with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b & c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗The proposed new dwelling would be in close proximity to existing mature trees on the eastern and western boundaries of the site. It would be within falling distance of the largest trees on both boundaries and the trees to the west would shade the garden close to the house and some internal living space in the afternoon. The trees might also give rise to nuisance caused by seasonal debris, such as fallen leaves in gutters. All these issues give rise to a significant risk of pressure for unreasonable and disproportionate pruning, which would threaten the health and longevity of the trees. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗The new dwelling would present its tallest, black metal clad elevation to the much smaller Mill Cottages to the north. On account of its relatively large scale, its domineering appearance and close proximity, the new building would be overbearing and give rise to at least the perception of overlooking and, potentially, real overlooking. Thus it would be an unneighbourly form of development which would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Mill Cottages in respect of outlook and overlooking. This would be contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.