Loading document...
Site
The application site forms the Lhen Garage, The Lhen, Andreas which is located on the southern side of the A10 road and adjacent to The Old School House, which is in the ownership of the applicant
and forms part of the application site. To the east of the Old School House is the dwelling "Stonefold" which is also in the ownership of the applicant.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, however the site is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
The following applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
The application proposes alterations, refurbishment and erection of a link extension to form residential accommodation.
The existing single storey detached garage is proposed to be converted into additional living accommodation over two floors. The first floor would be created by the erection of a pitched roof. The overall height of the building would increase by two metres.
The proposal also includes joining the existing dwelling "The Old School House" with the garage by the erection of a new extension which would act as a link.
Very large extensions to a basic cottage and although they sit on part of the footprint of the previous Garage building and they duplicate the front, ground floor, elevation of this building they seem to involve complete rebuild.
In the light of other extensions allowed in the countryside, they may be acceptable; the Society HAS DOUBTS.
The owner and/or occupant of Ballacallum Cottage, Lhen Bridge make comments to the planning application in relation to the redundancy of the existing garage and that it would not seem unreasonable to redevelop the site as a residential dwelling, the nearby dwellings are quite small, of a rural nature, and fit comfortably into their surroundings, however they consider the current proposal to represent a massive block, which is not helped by the height of the proposed link, and the refurbishment and link should be restricted to single storey height.
In principle I consider the conversion of the existing redundant garage into additional living accommodation is acceptable. The garage was constructed as part of a garage/petrol station which no longer exists or is likely to be required in the future.
In considering the proposal, Planning Circular 3/91 needs to be taken into consideration, particularly policy 3 which states:-
The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.
The existing garage is not an attractive building and currently has a negative appearance upon the surrounding area and properties. Consideration of the application must take into account that the garage is an existing building; the development proposes to retain the existing fabric of the building and increase the height of the existing roof to provide an additional floor to the garage building giving additional living accommodation. In doing so the existing garage building is significantly increased in scale and size.
The front (north) and side (east) elevations are the two elevations which will have the most impact upon the adjacent public highway, the A10 road. As stated previously, the existing building is not an attractive building and The Old School House is an attractive traditionally designed property which incorporates pitched roof dormer windows. The total width of the link extension and existing garage would be in excess of the width of the existing cottage, and would become the prominent structure on the site. I am of the opinion that with further development as proposed to a building which currently has a detrimental visual impact to The Old School House and the surrounding area, the proposal would further highlight the detrimental impact of the existing garage, by the increase in height, and size and therefore further detract from the character of the nearby dwellings, particularly The Old School House and to the visual amenities of the area.
I also have concerns regarding the size, design and appearance of the rear elevation, particularly regarding the fenestration details which consists of a total of six new uPVC patio doors. As can be seen from the existing dwelling, the patio doors to the rear elevation have been designed to compliment the traditional appearance of the dwelling and therefore be in keeping with Planning Circular 3/91. I do not consider the proposed fenestration would be in character with the existing dwelling and would introduce a new style inappropriate with the appearance of the existing dwelling.
I conclusion I consider it is very important to ensure that when constructing new buildings and alterations to existing buildings in the countryside, that the development is in a form and size that would not cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. In my opinion, the proposed development would be too large, over-dominant and create the impression that an additional dwelling has been constructed in this rural locality, rather than a modest extension to the existing dwelling which would maintain the character of that building. The proposed fenestration would also introduce a number of differing features that would not follow the traditional rural form of dwellings in the countryside.
For these reasons the proposals would seem inappropriate in these locations and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Whilst it is recommended that the planning application be refused, should planning approval subsequently be granted at appeal the following conditions are suggested:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 05.06.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The proposed alterations and extension would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/91 in that the proportion, form and detailing of the proposed alterations and extension would be unsympathetic and out of keeping with the building to which it would be attached and would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the locality.
Decision Made: Refuse Committee Meeting Date: 15/06/07
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown