Loading document...
THE SITE: The site as outlined in red on the proposed drawings is immediately adjacent to No. 22 Shore Road, Port St Mary which appears on the Protected Buildings Register as RB 203.
THE PROPOSAL: The application proposes Registered building consent for erection of a dwelling with integral garage to be attached to (In association with 07/00998/B) a Registered Building.
REPRESENTATIONS Port St. Mary Commissioners object to the application as, after having visited the site they consider that the development would be an over-development of the site and that the size and design would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties.
The Isle of Man Water Authority recommend the attachment of a note regarding connections to the main water supply
The Fire Prevention Officer recommends the installation of domestic smoke detection.
The owner of Harbour Cottage, The Underway, Port St. Mary, situated adjacent to the proposed site objects on the basis of a loss of light. This is a Planning consideration and will be dealt with by the Planning Officer in her report.
As the proposed development is attached to a Registered Building, I have had particular regard to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in considering the content of the application.
It occurs to me that there are two factors when considering this scheme; firstly, whether the building should be there in the first place and secondly, whether the design of the proposal is acceptable.
The red line on the map attached to the registration documentation is clear that the registration is drawn around the buildings and not the adjoining land. The reason for the requirement of the Registered Building application is that the proposed development is physically attached to the registered building and therefore has an impact on it.
The proposed design is not overly contentious. The form is traditional and utilises materials and forms that are readily found in the immediate vicinity and indeed the rest of the Island. There are arguments for the use of render it sets the building as different from the Registered Building and therefore aids in 'reading' the old from the new. Conversely, the buildings in the immediate vicinity i.e. the Registered buildings and the apartment block adjacent, are pointed stonework which reflects the 'working' nature of the harbour as some of the buildings such as the adjacent apartment block, are converted warehouses, net lofts or the like and would probably not have been rendered.
There is evidence both on the gable of the existing building and within the walled area, to suggest that there was a building formerly on the site. A perusal of the 1869 Ordnance Survey Map is inconclusive as the outline of a building is shown (in the same way as the registered buildings to which it adjoins), but it is not clear whether this represents a building or a garden wall.
The addition of the new dwelling impacts on the Registered Building in that there is currently an area of open space immediately adjacent to it, which enables the building to be readily seen. The introduction of this property will partially mask this.
I have some minor points, I would prefer that the building is set back slightly so as to show the quoins off of the original and so that this proposed property is seen to be subservient to the Registered Building. Secondly, the use of dormers on the front elevation which means that the down pipes between them (not shown on the drawings) will clutter the frontage appearing to the right of the front door, between the dormers and to the left of the dormers.
Having had consideration of all of the above, I am minded to recommend approval of this application.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The Isle of Man Water Authority are concerned with issues of supply which are not planning considerations and as such the Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The points raised by the Fire Prevention Officer are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such should be addressed by way of a note. The Fire Prevention Officer should not as such be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 07.08.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a dwelling as shown in drawing reference WL/07/1030/2 and /4 and the site and location plans all received on 23rd May, 2007, for clarification, the front elevation must be finished in natural stone to match that on the adjoining building and not as shown on drawing -/3 in render.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown