Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 1 of 6 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 14/00319/GB Applicant : Mr Roy Proctor Proposal : Variations and additional details pursuant to approved PA 11/00700/GB & PA 11/00701/CON (partial retrospective) (In association with PA 14/00320/CON) Site Address : Ballaradcliffe House Kiondroghad Road Andreas Isle of Man IM7 3EL
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 02.04.2014 Site Visit : 02.04.2014 Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the dwelling known Ballaradcliffe House, a Registered Building (RB247) that sits on the western edge of Andreas village. The site includes the dwelling and its associated garden. The applicant also controls a long, thin strip of land to the south that sits to the west of the residential development lying to the east, and which is edged blue on the submitted site plan. The dwelling is a detached two storey hipped roof house with two tall chimneys on each gable, while at the time of the site visit two (previously-approved) wing extensions were under construction. The property has a small basement at the western side and a long single storey garage and store to the rear on the western side.
1.2 The main core of the building is set back from the A19 to the north by 27m with its garage projecting 13m from the rear elevation towards the road. That garage is not part of the original Registration, and no works are proposed to it in respect of this application, full details of which are below. The orientation of the building is such that its front elevation lies towards the south of the site and the rear elevation to the north.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full and partially-retrospective planning approval is sought for some aesthetic alterations to the dwelling and its wings relative to those previously-approved. This application has been submitted alongside an application for Registered Building Consent (14/00320/CON). The changes proposed comprise:
Larger, replacement rooflights to the front roof elevation on the original part of the dwelling. These have already been installed. These were granted planning approval under previous planning and Registered Building applications (PA 11/00700/GB and 11/00701/CON).
==== PAGE 2 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 2 of 6 These are stated as being 780x980mm and they are shown on the plans as being Conservation-style in appearance; no information regarding the location of the opening style (if one exists at all) has been provided. 2. New rooflights in the side elevations of the hipped roof of the extensions. These have already been installed. These, too, are stated as being 780x980mm and they are shown on the plans as being Conservation-style in appearance; again, no information regarding the location of the opening style (if one exists at all) has been provided. 3. A new sliding sash window to the front elevation of the basement level of the western wing, comprising a 3x3 glazing pattern. The aperture has already been installed but the window unit itself has not. The method of how this sliding sash unit would open and operate has not been provided. 4. A new basement door to the side elevation of the western wing. No detail plan has been submitted in respect of this proposed new door, although the supporting information states that it will be "to match Georgian window style". The aperture has already been installed but the door itself has not. 5. The replacement of a previously-approved ground floor window in the eastern wing with a set of double doors with "fan light" above (although this, given its square features, would perhaps be better called a "transom door light"). 6. A new stepped access is proposed from the garden at the side of the western wing down to that proposed basement door. This would have a rendered blockwork retaining wall, but no other information in respect of details (e.g. colour or material of the steps) has been provided. 7. Replacement windows throughout the original part of the dwelling; identical windows are also shown in the wings. A detail plan has been submitted in respect of these windows, all of which were granted planning approval under previous planning and Registered Building applications (PA 11/00700/GB and 11/00701/CON).
2.2 This application is an attempt by the landowner to regularise those works done without planning approval (and without Registered Building Consent).
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Planning permission has previously been sought for the following on this site:
o 14/00320/CON - Registered Building consent for variations and additional details pursuant to approved PA 11/00700/GB & PA 11/00701/CON (partial retrospective) (In association with PA 14/00319/CON) Registered Building No. 247 - Pending determination o PA 11/01577/GB - Erection of a garage and utility extension to replace existing (In association with 11/01578/CON) - Refused o PA 11/01578/CON - Registered Building consent for the erection of a garage and utility extension to replace existing (In association with 11/01577/GB) Registered Building Nos. 247
o PA 08/01823/GB - Alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation (In association with 08/01824CON) - Permitted o PA 05/01835/A - Approval in principle to demolish existing house and develop site for two dwellings with garages (Re submission to PA 04/00210) - Refused o PA 04/00210/A - Approval in principle for the erection three detached two storey dwellings with garages to replace existing dwelling - Refused
==== PAGE 3 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 3 of 6 4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The dwelling lies within an area of Existing Predominantly Residential on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. The land to the south of the dwelling, and outside the residential curtilage, is designated as Woodland on the 1982 Plan although the trees on site are at the boundary of the field and not within it.
4.2 In terms of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, two policies are relevant. General Policy 2 states (in part): "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 space around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."
4.3 As the application relates to a Registered Building, Environment Policy 32 is also applicable. It states: "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted".
4.4 Finally, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man contains Policy RB/5, includes the following text: "There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Alfred Cannan MHK has written to the Director of Planning & Building Control requesting a quick resolution to the matter. He comments on procedural issues rather than the merits of the application itself.
5.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application.
5.3 Highway Services do not oppose the application.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issue is the extent to which the development proposed would detrimentally affect the character of the Registered Building, as required by Environment Policy 32 of the Strategic Plan.
6.2 Ballaradcliffe House has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications (and associated applications for Registered Building Consent) that, if implemented, would alter its appearance quite dramatically. The changes proposed here should be seen in that light, albeit that the fact remains that Ballaradcliffe House in its entirety is Registered and that the very special protection provided to it in established Planning Policy and the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 remain.
6.3 The proposed rooflights to the front elevation are considered to be unobjectionable in principle. Similar rooflights have previously been approved in these locations and of the size here proposed, and it is considered that an objection on this point could not be sustained.
==== PAGE 4 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 4 of 6 Moreover, the original dwelling did have a pair of off-set rooflights to the front, and a single rooflight to the rear - albeit that these were noticeably smaller than those for which approval is now sought - such that the principle is considered acceptable. Insufficient detail in respect of their opening method has been submitted, which is unfortunate. It is recommended that, if approval is forthcoming, a condition be attached requiring the specific details of rooflights to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department. It is noted that this element of the application is retrospective such that any condition to this effect should be worded in a way to ensure the details are provided within a certain time period of the decision notice being issued.
6.4 The rooflights to the roof hips on the side elevations, however, are less acceptable. It is considered that, if approved, this would result in a situation where, collectively, the roof would become excessively cluttered and detract from the original period format of Ballaradcliffe House to the detriment of the roofscape. This, however, is something of a balanced concern inasmuch as the rooflights are small in scale and they could be said to reinforce the symmetry of the building as a whole. It is not considered that the application could be refused on this point alone, but it is nevertheless considered appropriate to raise an objection to the rooflights for the reason outlined above.
6.5 Much of the success of the building as a whole is in its symmetry. This symmetry is reinforced via its fenestration to the front, side and rear elevations. The land slopes away slightly towards the west such that the western wing would have more walling visible above ground level and therefore the symmetry of the built form is not total. However, the symmetry of the fenestration is complete throughout the elevations. It is not considered that the interruption of this symmetry on any of the building's elevations, but especially to its principal elevation, can be regarded as acceptable. On this basis, the proposed Georgian sliding sash window (to the front elevation) and the proposed access door to the basement (to the side (western) elevation) would be unacceptably detrimental to the character and appearance of Ballaradcliffe House. It should also be noted that, while the land does slope away as described, additional engineering works have been undertaken to intensify this slope; these works constitute "development" and should therefore have formed a part of the current planning application, and it is unfortunate that they did not.
6.6 Again, the lack of detailed information provided in respect of the proposed sliding sash window and side access door makes a full and proper assessment of this part of the proposal impossible. Given the building's acknowledged importance - it is, after all, Registered - such a lack of information is most unfortunate. If planning approval is forthcoming, however, a condition should be attached requiring the specific details of the sliding sash window and access door to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department. Although the window and door apertures have been created, the window unit itself has not been installed such that any such condition would need to be worded to ensure the details were required prior to the installation of the window unit and side access door.
6.7 A similar conclusion must be reached in respect of the proposed double doors in place of a previously-window. This, however, must be judged as especially inappropriate given its failure to reflect the symmetry of the dwelling overall, which would profoundly disrupt the symmetry of the fenestration of the entirety of the building as a whole - not just the eastern elevation - and detrimentally harm the special characteristics of this Registered Building. It is possible that a single door of identical width to the windows above and alongside might be more acceptable, but even then there would be a somewhat unfortunate unbalancing of the side elevation. In any case, this is not before the Department for assessment.
6.8 Again, the lack of detailed information provided in respect of the proposed double doors makes a full and proper assessment of this part of the proposal impossible. If planning approval is forthcoming, however, a condition should be attached requiring the specific details of the double doors to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department.
==== PAGE 5 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 5 of 6 Although the doors' aperture has been created, the doors themselves have not been installed such that any such condition would need to be worded to ensure the details were required prior to the installation of the door units.
6.9 The stepped access proposed down to the basement door in the western wing has not been constructed albeit that there has been some excavation work undertaken in this area. This small change in site level is not in itself considered objectionable albeit that this must be considered in the context of the fact that the door to which the steps are to service is not considered acceptable for the reasons outlined above.
6.10 Again, the lack of details provided in respect of the proposed stepped access makes a full and proper assessment of this part of the proposal impossible. If planning approval is forthcoming, however, a condition should be attached requiring the specific details of the stepped access to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department prior to its construction.
6.11 Finally in terms of the development proposals, the replacement windows throughout are considered acceptable. Full and almost comprehensive details have been submitted in respect of the proposed windows and at an adequate scale (1:10) to have a sufficient understanding of the style proposed. These details would need to be referenced on any approval notice, should one be forthcoming. There should, however, be a condition requiring the units throughout the dwelling be of timber construction, as this detail has unfortunately been omitted from the window details plan submitted.
6.12 An additional, but fundamental, issue is a procedural one. The description of the application was advertised as: "Variations and additional details pursuant to approved PA 11/00700/GB & PA 11/00701/CON (partial retrospective) (In association with PA 14/00320/CON)". It is not possible to vary details relating to a previous approval. While the application seeks to vary, and provide additional, details in respect previously approved applications, given the works that have already been carried out not in accordance with those approvals it is arguable that they are no longer valid or extant. In any event, an application cannot merely vary the details of a proposal: it must seek full Planning Approval for the varied scheme as a whole. A sad consequence of this is that it now appears there are no longer any implementable approvals relating to this building.
6.13 It should also be noted that the dormer window appears not to have been built in line with the previously-approved details. Any future application should reflect on this point.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Four specific elements of the planning application - namely: (i) the side-hip rooflights, (ii) the double doors (iii) the additional window to the front elevation, and (iv) the basement door - do not meet the provisions of Environment Policy 32 in that they individually and collectively detrimentally affect the special character and appearance of Ballaradcliffe House, a Registered Building. It is therefore recommended that the planning application be refused for this reason.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
==== PAGE 6 ====
1 September 2014 14/00319/GB Page 6 of 6 8.2 Mr Alfred Cannan MHK is not considered to have sufficient interest in the application to be granted Interested Person Status in line with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b).
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused
Date of Recommendation:
28.07.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. Four specific elements of the planning application - namely: (i) the side-hip rooflights, (ii) the double doors (iii) the additional window to the front elevation, and (iv) the basement door - do not meet the provisions of Environment Policy 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that they individually and collectively detrimentally affect the special character and appearance of Ballaradcliffe House, a Registered Building.
--
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 1st September 2014
Signed : Mr E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
