Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the southern side of the Corlea Road. The site is very long - extending some 230m to the south of the highway. The house is a two storey, modern house which is visible from the Corlea Road when approaching the entrance from the west but not so from further afield to the south.
The site lies within an area which is not designated for development on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and on the draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 the site lies within an area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided:
"Incised Slopes - Ballamodha - Landscape Character Area 2 - Ballamodha, Earystane, and St Mark's: This is a fairly resilient landscape which has accommodated incursions of modern built development without severe detriment. However, some of the larger-scale residential developments lack either the topographical setting or the groups of trees which might have mitigated their visual impact.
The draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states:
The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
Planning permission has been sought and granted for the following developments at this site: PA 85/0089 - alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation - permitted PA 85/1159 - extension to form kitchen, office and twenty kennels - permitted PA 93/0150 - provision of porch and stable - permitted
Proposed now is the extension of the dwelling. There are three extensions - one to the south which projects 5.8 m from the existing rear elevation and is 8.7 m wide and is the same height as the main ridge. The second extension is to the side (east) of the main house and extends the main core by 5.9 m and with a ridge slightly ( 150 mm ) lower than that of the main house, and the third is a link from the rear of the house to the existing garage, which projects 2.8 m from the front elevation.
Malew Parish Commissioners and the Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application
The proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policy 16 which states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
In this case it is relevant to consider PA 10/00866/B at Ecklands, further to the west of this site where proposals to extend the property were refused as they would increase the impact of the property. That property is single storey and proposed was a dormer on the southern elevation (ie not the elevation facing towards the road), a side porch and the infilling of a porch on the roadward side.
In this present case the property is presently visible from the main road and whilst the proposed southern extension would not render the property any more visible, the side and northern extension would increase the size of the property and thus increase its impact as viewed from the road. Whilst the applicant has proposed additional tree planting between the viewer and the extension comprising pinus nigra maritime (Corsican black pine), leylandi, poplar and silver birch all planted at 8/9ft (2.4m - 2.7m) high and with a growth rate such that they would be 18-20 ft (5.4m - 6m) tall after three years and 25 ft (7.6m) tall after 5 years.
It may well be that if planted, the screen will hide or at least partially screen the extension, and more of the dwelling than is presently hidden. However, these trees do not presently exist on site nor do they screen the site of the extension and it will take a number of years to effectively do this. The policy does not state that extensions which increase the impact of the property will be approved if planting schemes are proposed which will eventually screen the extensions. As such, the sideward and northern extensions would not satisfy Housing Policy 16 until such time as the planting has been introduced and has become established. A further application for only the southern extension is likely to be considered compatible with HP 14.
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 18.11.2010
R 1 . The proposed side and northern extensions would be visible from the Corlea Road and would increase the size and mass of what is a non-traditional property. As such this would conflict with Housing Policy 16. Whilst planting is proposed, this is not yet in place and until it is and is established sufficient to screen the extensions, the proposal would not comply with HP16.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date: ............................... Signed: .............................. Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
