Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00899/B Applicant: Mr Simon & Mrs F Perren Proposal: External alterations, formation of rear roof terrace, and replacement of existing roof profile Site Address: 2 Grenea Cottages Shore Road Kentraugh Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5NB ### Considerations Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: ______________________________ Site Visit: ______________________________ Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Rushen Commissioners Notes : Comments received Consultee : Highways Division Notes : Do not oppose Consultee : Chief Fire Officer Notes :** Comments received
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
The site represents the curtilage of an existing detached dwelling situated on the northern side of Shore Road between Strandhall Farm and Kentraugh. The dwelling is one of four - two detached and two semi-detached two storey properties which all face south and have open areas across the road where there is also a parking bay.
The properties have similarities in their appearance but are in no way consistent within the row, the application property being the least like its neighbours. Numbers one, three and four have eaves level dormer roofs and pitched roofed porches on the front elevation - on number one the porch is centrally positioned and on numbers three and four the porches are offset to each side of the front elevation. Number one has the lower part finished in rough render whereas numbers three and four are consistently finished in a more smooth render. The properties have a variety of windows -
30 July 2010 10/00899/B Page 1 of 5
triangular bays, large, square windows and three and four have timber cladding between the ground and first floor windows. The application property has a large projecting two storey bay across the front elevation which very much dominates the frontage, with a predominantly glass upper level and a flat roofed porch in the centre of the ground floor.
All three properties have a low rendered wall fronting onto Shore Road, slated pitched roofs and chimneys at some point in the roofs.
the site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. On the draft Southern Area Plan published on 23rd October, 2009 as part of the "rugged coast" in the "Poyllvaaish and Scarlett Peninsula" area where the Written Statement states "This area, stretching from Kentraugh in the west to the Silverburn in the east, comprises largely flat, agricultural land rising gently from the sea as far as the main road through Colby, Ballabeg and Ballasalla. There are generally few trees in the landscape, although Kentraugh and the banks of the Colby River and the Silverburn are welcome exceptions. The Ancient Monuments on Chapel Hill are of considerable interest which is enhanced by their setting" (paragraph 4.3.5).
There has also been recently published a draft Planning Policy Statement on The Role of Landscape Character in Development which provides policy guidance on development in these areas and states in the case of rugged coast: "The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Rugged Coast Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the distinctive coastal features (rugged low cliffs, headlands, sandy bays, and wave-cut platforms); the strong sense of remoteness and tranquillity; its rich pattern of coastal habitats; the open and expansive panoramic seascape views; the numerous sites of archaeological importance; and the landscape settings of the coastal settlements.
Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
Planning permission was granted for the installation of replacement windows and two new windows under PA 00/1253 and a hipped slated roof under 06/1064.
Planning permission was initially approved for a more radical scheme of alteration and extension under PA 09/1570 which was refused on appeal where the Appeal Inspector makes the following comments: "The main issue in this case is the visual impact of the proposed development and whether the design of the altered building would be acceptable in its setting" (paragraph 13). "The appeal property is quite prominently located next to a main road, and is part of a small group of houses which are similar in scale and broadly similar in design despite having been altered in various ways. The finishing materials - slate roofs and rough-rendered pale-coloured walls - also have a degree of harmony. However these houses are undistinguished in appearance and the large front bay and flat-roofed projections at the appeal property look incongruous" (paragraph 14). "The proposed alteration would also look incongruous, probably more so to many people than the existing building. As is apparent from the photomontage, the shape of the upper part of the proposed alterations, the zinc covering on the top floor and other designs elements such as the proportion of window to wall would contrast with the neighbouring buildings. Whether this contrast would regarded by passers-by as acceptable or unacceptable would be largely a matter of individual opinion" (paragraph 15). "General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan sets out various criteria, subject to which development will normally be permitted. One criterion...is that development "respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them". I do not consider that the scale, form or design of this proposal respects the surroundings. On the other hand, it can reasonably be argued that the previous alterations (which have either received planning approval or have not been enforced against) have made the existing building so poorly proportioned and out of keeping with its surroundings that the current proposal would be an improvement. Looked at in that light, the policy conflict is not necessarily decisive" (paragraph 16). "The fact that the area is designated as having "high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance" is a material consideration, but is not in my judgment of major importance. I say this because the policies attached to this designation are mainly aimed at maintaining the character of settlements, protecting undeveloped areas, or protecting coastal views. In these respects the proposal would not have a major effect, and the appeal site is not within a settlement" (paragraph 17). "I am inclined to agree with the comment in Parish Commissioners' written statement that if the development were carried out, many people would ask: "How on earth did that get planning permission?" Some people would see the altered building as a jarring feature in the scene. Others would see the modern design and finishing materials as an interesting contrast with the adjacent more conventional old buildings and there are valid arguments in favour of the proposal" (paragraph 18) "On balance, I think the altered building would be so out of keeping with its setting as to go beyond the threshold of acceptability, having regard to the policy aspects mentioned above. That said, I do not find the planning authority's decision to be unsound; and if developments using modern materials and design features are to happen in the Island this might be as good a place as any for such development, because of the poor appearance of the appeal property and the undistinguished design of the neighbouring buildings...The decision on this case may depend partly on personal taste and my recommendation is made tentatively, on the basis that you may well have a different view and would wish to confirm the planning authority's decision to grant approval" (paragraphs 22 and 23).
The Minister endorsed the Inspector's recommendation and that application was refused on appeal.
Now proposed is a similar scheme to that proposed previously, except that the roof is now to be pitched and finished in slates not zinc and barrel vaulted as previously. The ridge will be 1.8 m higher than those of the properties on each side. The altered dwelling will be 1.7 m higher than the existing and 700 mm lower than the scheme most recently refused.
Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service are concerned at the internal layout of the property which they consider is unsafe. This is not a matter for the planning process and is dealt with in the Building Regulations.
Rushen Parish Commissioners are of the opinion that the new design, with a third floor, would be considerably higher than the neighbouring properties and would therefore be out of keeping in design and somewhat overbearing.
The criticism by the appeal inspector of the previous scheme related to how different the altered building would appear in the streetscene, with particular reference to the shape of the upper part of the proposed alterations, the zinc covering on the top floor and other designs elements such as the proportion of window to wall would contrast with the neighbouring buildings.
The applicant has attempted to address this by proposing a scheme which utilises slate on the roof, has a pitched roof shape and which removes the dominant projecting glazed front bay and replacing it with a flat window which has more solid walling around it and only a first floor balcony. Whilst the building is to be taller than the existing, the existing building is already out of harmony with its neighbours due to the projecting bay which reduces the contribution which the existing slated roof makes to the appearance of the property. The proposed scheme restores that balance somewhat by increasing the amount of slate which is visible and removing the projecting bay, restoring the visual importance of the roof. Whilst the building will be taller, the additional height takes the form of a slated structure with the eaves level the same as the existing.
As such, whilst there is still an objection from the local authority that the property would be out of keeping, it is considered that the proposed amendments visually improve the appearance of the property and would not result a property which is any more intrusive or out of keeping than is the existing and in many ways the proposed scheme results in a property which is more sympathetic to its neighbours.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The Fire Officer raises issues which are not material planning concerns and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
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 alterations and extensions shown in drawings reference 1169-00, 116902C, 1169-06, 1169-07 and 1169-08 all received on 16th June, 2010.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date : 1.0. 1.0. 1.0. Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
