Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling which sits on the southern side of the A7 Main Road just to the east of the Croit-e-Caley Road between Ballakilloway and Colby. The existing property is a traditional Manx cottage with shop bay window on the front elevation and vehicular access to the west of the building to a small garage to the rear of the house. The dwelling has a rear two storey annex whose roof is slightly lower than the main ridge.
There is a rear garden which is lower than the ground level at the front of the dwelling which is grassed and bounded by a stone wall. To the west of the site is another Manx cottage, Stone House which is of similar proportions but smaller than the application property. To the east is a stone outbuilding with its gable to the road. To the rear of the property are two relatively modern properties - Lindisfarne to the south west and Pine View to the south east.
The site lies within an area designated on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan as Residential.
There have been no planning applications submitted in respect of this site.
Proposed is the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a pair of semi-detached properties in its place with vehicular parking to the rear of the building. The building is 5m to the eaves on the front elevation with a pitched roof with two pitched roofed dormer windows in the front and rear pitches, with the rear elevation providing three storeys of accommodation plus accommodation within the roof in an elevation which extends to 8m to the eaves. The windows are
to be "uPVC" with no indication of the opening fashion (the existing windows are timber framed sliding sashes with a Georgian six pane glazing pattern on the front elevation) with lower ground floor patio doors on the rear elevation with ground and first floor patio doors with Juliet-style balconies (which do not protrude sufficiently from the elevation to allow occupants to step out onto an extended area but would allow occupants to lean out to take advantage of the view to the rear from these levels).
The roof is to be finished in dark grey" tiles which does not suggest that they will be slates and the walls finished in "cream coloured smooth render".
The vehicular access takes the form of a 3.3m wide land alongside the dwelling leading to four parking spaces formed on grasscrete blocks. The spaces are arranged on a tandem basis with insufficient space to allow all vehicles to turn and both enter and exit the site in a forward gear. Another parking space is shown to the east of the site although this is not within the site as defined in red on the location plan.
No details of the existing dwelling are provided nor the heights of the adjacent buildings in the streetscene.
A resident of Port Soderick suggests that there is no information provided as to why the existing dwelling cannot be retained, contrary to Housing Policy 18 which supports the retention and re-use of houses which are fit for human habitation. No comments are made by this party on the merits or otherwise of the scheme beyond this principle.
The occupant of Lindisfarne objects to the application on the basis that the proposal will impinge on their privacy, would represent an "overwhelming mass" and an over-intensive development with inadequate provision for manoeuvring within the site, inadequate information about an existing tree on the site and that the development would adversely affect the light available to their property.
The occupant of Little Hamlet, Pump Street objects to the application on the basis that there are no measurements on the plans, the proposal may dwarf the adjacent cottages and that the construction process is likely to result in the adjacent bus stop being used for parking.
Rushen Parish Commissioners comment that the plans are inadequate as they include no existing or comparative measurements or drawings, the elevational treatment is unacceptable and the inclusion of toilets next to the footway is not satisfactory. They also comment that the parking is inadequate and the roofing material is not slate and should be.
The occupant of Stone House objects to the application and comments on the lack of measurements and there is no comparison for the height of the building, the inclusion of French windows will give an opportunity for overlooking of the properties to the rear and that the development is not sympathetic to the area.
Prior to the submission of the application, a scheme was submitted for comment to the Planning Office. This was similar but not identical to that which is now proposed. Comment was made that the provision for car parking and access was unacceptable as there is a single width access to serve two properties and tandem spaces with inadequate space for turning within the site. It was also commented that there were no measurements of the existing profile of the building and no way of assessing the impact of the dwelling in the streetscene in terms of height of the proposed buidling. Some of these concerns have not been addressed in the application - there is no indication of the height of the existing dwelling, which is already the tallest of the Manx cottages in this row and as such, the inclusion of dormers in the roof and the increase depth of the property would suggest that the proposed dwellings are taller than the existing and thus would be out of keeping with the streetscene in terms of its height.
The other cottages in the row have regular lines of windows in each floor - the proposed dwelling has two sizes of window in the upper floor and a wider porch than is generally the case for traditional properties. The inclusion of toilets within the front porch structure is not likely to be particularly pleasant for the occupants of the proposed properties as the windows serving these rooms are immediately adjacent to the footway. The roof of the property is to be finished in a material that is not slate, thus not sympathetic to the streetsceene and the inclusion of overhanging eaves without the kneeler stones of the adjacent properties nor dentilled cornicing on the existing property and roofing which extends beyond the gable walls, all represent features which are not found on the traditional properties alongside. The proposed dwelling would therefore represent a poor replication of the traditional property which is being replaced and the other buildings alongside it.
The inclusion of balconies and the increase in the number of dwellings and therefore occupants of the buildings on the site will result in opportunities for overlooking and perceptions of being overlooked from the properties to the rear, opportunities and perceptions which do not presently exist.
The arrangements for parking and access are inadequate to serve two properties: the access does not provide for two vehicles to pass and the parking spaces are tandem spaces with inadequate space for vehicles to turn, thus resulting in considerable movement and thus potentially nuisance for those in Stone House from vehicles driving and potentially reversing up and down the access road to get in and out of the site and potential for confusion and detriment to road safety when an emerging vehicle may meet one trying to access the site.
It is considered that the design of the dwelling and its height are inappropriate for the area and would result in overlooking of adjacent property and the site is not of a sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate two dwellings with the required access and parking.
The property is to be built to the north east of Lindisfarne and as such is unlikely to affect the light available to this property or to Pine View. However, the mass of the building is deeper than the existing and as such the longer western gable comes much closer to Stone house than does the existing and as such is likely to dominate the rear of this property and adversely affect the light and outlook therefrom.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of Lindisfarne, Stone House and Little Hamlet are all immediately alongside or very close to the site and would be directly affected by the proposal and the implications for access and road safety and as such should be afforded party status in this instance..
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2008 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed dwelling would represent a poor replication of the traditional property which is being replaced and the other buildings alongside it. The cottages in the row have regular lines of windows in each floor - the proposed dwelling has two sizes of window in the upper floor and a wider porch than is generally the case for traditional properties. The inclusion of toilets within the front porch structure is not likely to be particularly pleasant for the occupants of the proposed properties as the windows serving these rooms are immediately adjacent to the footway. The roof of the property is to be finished in a material that is not slate, thus not sympathetic to the streetscene and the inclusion of overhanging eaves without the kneeler stones of the adjacent properties nor dentilled cornicing on the existing property and roofing which extends beyond the gable walls, all represent features which are not found on the traditional properties alongside.
R 2. The inclusion of balconies and the increase in the number of dwellings and therefore occupants of the buildings on the site will result in opportunities for overlooking and perceptions of being overlooked from the properties to the rear, opportunities and perceptions which do not presently exist.
R 3. The arrangements for parking and access are inadequate to serve two properties: the access does not provide for two vehicles to pass and the parking spaces are tandem spaces with inadequate space for vehicles to turn, thus resulting in considerable movement and thus potentially nuisance for those in Stone House from vehicles driving and potentially reversing up and down the access road to get in and out of the site and potential for confusion and detriment to road safety when an emerging vehicle may meet one trying to access the site.
R 4. It is considered that the site is not of a sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate two dwellings with the required access and parking.
R 5. The proposed building is deeper than the existing and as such the longer western gable and greater massing come much closer to Stone House than does the existing and as such is likely to dominate the rear of this property and adversely affect the light and outlook therefrom.
R 6. The application contains insufficient information to demonstrate the full impact of the dwelling in terms of any reference or information relating to the existing building and no information or drawings of the other properties in the streetscene or to the rear which are considerably lower than the application building.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date: 4/12/08 Signed: [signature] Senior Planning Officer
Decision Made : Refused Date: 4/12/08 Signed: [signature] Senior Planning Officer
4 December 2008
4 December 2008
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown