Planning Statement Re-submission

Planning Statement to Accompany Re-submission Plot 11 Ballakillowey

Ensign Homes

Job Ref: 83.1240

Planning application No. 01/00731/B was refused on 31st August 2001 after consultation with the Planning office. A revised application No. 01/2226/B was submitted and refused on 5th April 2002. An appeal of this decision was requested and the Inspector upheld the Committee's original decision. The reasons for refusal were given as follows:

The proposed dwelling would:

1. appear dominant and overpowering when viewed by existing residents and from the entrance to the estate; and would
2. result in overlooking and a substantial loss of privacy in neighbouring properties.

The Inspector made the following points in his conclusion:

1. The topography of the land limits the design and lends itself to a split level design.
2. Given the planning permission for the estate that already exists, adjoining residents cannot expect a view of the hillside.
3. Any redesign should provide for a smaller dwelling, which is less dominant with a substantial reduction in the ability to overlook existing dwellings.

The new design seeks to address the Inspector's concerns as follows:

1. The first floor balcony has been removed.
2. The internal areas have been re-arranged to give only bedrooms at first floor level, with all general living areas contained at the ground floor level.
3. The windows overlooking adjoining properties at first floor level have been omitted wherever possible.
4. A stepped façade to adjoining properties has been adopted to ensure that the southern façade of the dwelling to neighbouring properties is single storey and reduce the overall mass.
5. The roof is now hipped and all gables removed to again reduce the overall mass.
6. The overall size of the dwelling has been reduced in area, resulting in the loss of one bedroom.
7. The floor levels have been reviewed and lowered as far as possible.
8. The distance to adjoining properties increased.

The topography of the land and the level of the estate road already formed to serve the approved dwellings of the estate, as the Inspector acknowledged, does lend itself to a split level design. The dwelling when viewed from the estate road is a true bungalow and the ridge height is therefore as low as is possible. It necessarily follows that no reduction or removal of the lower floor level would affect the height or overall ridge height. The slope of the land would only result in retaining walls and earth banking which would not reduce the mass of the dwelling when viewed from the south. The design reflects a reduction in area whilst attempting to retain the scale and character of the remainder of the estate, we feel that a reasonable compromise solution is achieved. The orientation on site previously discussed with the Planning Officer has been retained. The screen planting to the landscaped area discussed at review has been retained.

Mr N Davies, the owner of Seaview, was invited to participate in the development of the design of the dwelling. This offer was not, however, taken up.