Planning Statement Resubmission

Planning Statement to Accompany Re-submission

Plot 12

Ballakillowey

Ensign Homes

Job Ref: 84 1240

Planning application No. 01/00732/B was refused on 31st August 2001. After consultation with the Planning Office a revised application No. 01/0222/B was approved on 5th April 2002. Following requests by third parties, the approval was overturned at appeal by the Planning Inspector.

The main reason given was:

The overall mass of the building would result in a dwelling that is both overly dominant and overbearing in the streetscape.

The Inspector did however make the points:

1. The topography of the site did lend itself to a split level design.
2. Given the planning permission for the site adjoining residents cannot expect a view of the hillside and some overlooking is inevitable.
3. The re-orientation of the dwelling on the site resulted in the dwelling not facing the rear of Seaview.

A further application was submitted on the 15th July 2003 planning No. 03/00019/B, this was subsequently refused on the 25th July 2003. On reason was given in that the Committee did not feel the original reasons for refusal had not been adequately addressed.

The new application has been designed to acknowledge the Inspector's observations and conclusions 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 garage is now fully detached to minimise the overall mass of the dwelling.
6. The overall size of the dwelling has been reduced in area.
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. This elevation is the principle elevation seen when entering the estate, we feel that an earth bank or retaining wall is inappropriate, and would be inappropriate to the design of the dwellings presently under construction. We also feel the stepped approach is reflected in the two bungalows revealed on entering the estate. 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 dwelling has been sited as far away from the existing dwellings as possible and the position of original application is shown in grey to illustrate the point. The floor level of the dwelling is also shown as low as possible without compromising minimum gradients required for disabled access and vehicle entry. The screen planting to the landscaped area discussed at review has been retained.