Richard Green Planning Review Submission

Appendix

Richard Green Associates

architectural services

OCEAN HOUSE 87 CIRCULAR ROAD DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN IM1 1AX

tel: 01624 676202

fax: 01624 672123 96/2 /JRG/RG

your ref

our ref

16th June 2005

The Secretary The Planning Committee Department of Local Government and the Environment Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Dear Sir,

Re: PA 05/00387/B – Erection of Two Storey Extension to provide Study, Lounge and Bedroom to rear of Dwelling, Creation of Hardstanding/Drive and New Vehicular Access for off road Parking and Erection of Replacement Shed at Rhenwee Cottage, Regaby West Road, Andreas for Miss C Bradley

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 2005 accepting our request for a review of your Committees initial decision in respect of the above application and inviting further written representation which we submit as follows :-

An application for Planning Approval in detail was submitted on February 2005.

Your Committee refused the application by way of their notice dated May 2005.

The reason for refusal was “By reasons of their size and extent the proposed extensions to the dwelling, which constitutes a traditional Manx cottage sited close to the highway, are considered not to accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91 – Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside. In particular the proposed development is contrary to Policy 3 of the Planning Circular, which states that extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.”

It is noted that Andreas Parish Commissioners had no objections to the application.

It is noted that the Department of Transport Highways Division had no views on the application as having “no adverse traffic impacts.”

It is noted that The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment made no comment but stated the “design was OK”.

It is noted that The Advisory Council on Planning did not submit any views.

It is probably not known to your Committee or your Planning Officer that the “traditional Manx cottage” that stood on this site was burnt down and the house now standing was built circa 1949. The application is therefore for an extension to a post war dwelling not a traditional Manx cottage. A photograph of the house as re-built is attached at Appendix A which clearly shows the architecture as being a post war house very similar to many houses built in the countryside at that time, especially in the north of the island. The proportions of the windows installed can also be clearly seen.

This explains why the proportion of and style of the windows does not follow those of a traditional Manx cottage, these being much larger. The windows are of pvc material and we are informed the window apertures were not altered when these were fitted.

The roofs of the property are covered in concrete tiles, not slates, as would be the case on a traditional Manx cottage.

A single storey extension was added to the north elevation circa 1988.

The front of the house has a porch which is not particularly attractive, it appearing rather clumsy in detail. As part of this application it was intended to demolish that structure and completely re-build it in a more appropriate style.

The rear elevation of the house is of no particular design and could not be described as traditional.

Photographs of the house are attached at Appendix A illustrating the above and should be read in conjunction with the submitted drawing number 96/2/3.

The present accommodation comprises two small bedrooms at first floor level with a small bathroom at ground floor level; a smallish kitchen, reasonable sized utility room and a living room in the more recent single storey addition. Our client occupies the house with her partner, both police officers, and purchased the property from her parents together with part of the field to the rear with the intention of extending the house to create a reasonably sized family home with off road parking. The present accommodation will not provide sufficient space for a family home. The bathroom at ground floor level, away from the bedrooms, is far from ideal.

The proposals are to create a good sized master bedroom with en-suite facilities and a bathroom to serve the other two bedrooms. The extension to the ground floor only provides a reasonably sized lounge, an enlarged kitchen and a study. The study is required by both persons in connection with their employment. Approximately 30% of Miss Bradley’s partners work is carried out from home. In its extended form the property could be considered a reasonably sized family home yet still only a three bedroomed house.

Turning now to the reasons for refusal. These refer to Planning Circular 3/91 and in particular to Policy 3. In designing the extension we took particular care to maintain the character of the

original form., except for the north elevation which can only be seen from a great distance across the fields and which, as it exists, does not retain any traditional features.

The front of the house ( east elevation ) does not change except for the porch which has been designed more sympathetically.

The side of the house facing the road ( south elevation ) has a new gable which mirrors the existing gable exactly, but with four traditionally positioned windows, and a chimney to traditional proportions. This is purposely set further back from the existing gable, and the road, to minimise the impact from the highway. It is linked by a wall, again set back from both gables, in simple form as required by the Guide, without any embellishments. The windows are to the same proportions and design of those existing in the rest of the house. It should be noted that the whole of the extension is set down into the rising ground levels and that most is screened by the mature trees on the roadside bank ( please refer to photographs at Appendix A ).

The rear or west elevation is simple and traditional in form and is sunk into the ground.

Regarding size, we would refer you to our drawing numbered 96/2/2, the site plan, from which the proposed extension does not appear overly large in comparison to the footprint of the existing building.

We aver therefore that the design of the extension is in accord with the guidelines of Planning Circular 3/91 despite the fact that the house is post war, and was extended circa 1988 with Planning consent under the 1982 Development Plan at which time the “ traditional cottage” was lost.

It was particularly noteworthy that the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment felt the design was OK which, if their views are to be considered worthwhile, and obviously your Committee must think they are if they are to continue making observations on planning applications, then we would urge your Committee to reconsider their views on the design.

To summarise the extension applied for would provide a reasonable sized family home, not pretentious, on a post war dwelling of no architectural merit offering very limited accommodation by today's standards, but which still provides a traditional appearance in the countryside, set into the rising ground levels and screened by mature trees.

Benefits are also gained by providing off road car parking to which the Department of Transport Highways Division have not objected.

For the above reasons we believe that closer examination of the submitted plans and taking into account the foregoing your Committee should reverse their initial decision in favour of our client.

In the event that we are unsuccessful in persuading your Committee to approve the application our client would very much like to proceed with the re-construction of the front porch due to severe damp problems in that area and perhaps that part of the application could be approved separately.

We look forward to receiving your decision in due course. Yours faithfully, J RICHARD GREEN