Erection of attached garage and ancillary accommodation and detached garden store

Why Was This Refused?

• ✓Window and gate proportions on the extension did not match the existing house
• ✓Garden store's flat roof and composite cladding clashed with the existing hipped roofscape
• ✓Risk to existing trees near the west boundary was not mitigated
• ✓Principle of ancillary accommodation was considered acceptable
• ✓No harm to neighbouring amenity was identified for either element
• ✓design
• ✓character
• ✓materials
• ✓trees
• ✓the principle of the ancillary accommodation (extension only)
• ✓impact on the design of the house itself (extension only)
• ✓impact on the character and streetscene of the area
• ✓impact on the amenities of the neighbours
• ✓impact on trees (garden store)

Permission was sought to erect an attached garage with ancillary accommodation and a separate detached garden store at Mount Auldyn House, a two-storey detached property on Jurby Road, Ramsey. The application was refused by delegated decision on 17 October 2024. The attached garage and ancillary accommodation were refused because the proportions of the proposed windows and gate deviated from those of the existing windows and door, which the decision-maker considered harmful to the design of the house. The principle of providing ancillary accommodation was not itself objected to, and no harm to neighbouring amenity was found. The detached garden store was refused separately because its composite cladding and flat roof were considered out of keeping with the smooth finish and pitched, hipped roofscape of the existing house. The submission also failed to address the risk of losing existing trees near the west boundary, which would further harm the appearance of the area.

The application was refused on two grounds. First, the proposed attached garage and ancillary accommodation used window and gate proportions that did not match the existing house, harming its design. Second, the detached garden store's composite cladding and flat roof clashed with the smooth finish and pitched roofscape of the existing building, and the risk to nearby trees was not adequately addressed.

Policies Assessed (3)

Planning History (1)

Documents (18)