Loading document...
The original plans which were submitted took the form of a dormer bungalow which was not considered to be modern and innovative or traditional. The applicant and his client reconsidered the scheme and the design has evolved to take the form and appearance of a simple structure that has taken its influence from a Dutch barn. These plans show the applicant's interpretation of a modern and innovative dwelling. Such matters are by their nature likely to be subjective. It is considered however that the simple structure is of a modern design, and the use of glazing and steel columns would also emphasise the modern appearance of the dwelling. Although the building would be of modern design, it is arguable whether it is truly innovative. Furthermore, whilst it appears it would be constructed of high quality materials, there is no provision for the re-use of any materials from the original building, neither does there appear to be any evidence that would support this application being "exceptional". The site is within an "Area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" and also an area of "Woodland" identified on the 1982 Development Plan. To the western and southern sides of the site there are large areas of dense woodland, to the eastern side there are a number of fields which are disrupted by smaller clusters of mature trees, the site and fields to the east gently slope away to the north. The appropriateness of modern and innovative buildings often rests on how they relate to their surroundings. In some instances it is accepted that a building which contrasts with its surroundings thereby making a statement, can be an appropriate design approach. Certainly a building with a bespoke design is often better than an "off the peg" suburban dwelling located within the countryside. However, despite the concept of the design evolving from that of a Dutch barn and the proposed palette of materials being timber, glazing and steel, it is considered that the resulting appearance is too akin to that of a modern commercial office, and may be more appropriate in a business park rather than an 'Area of High Landscape Value'. ## Visual Impact The site itself is not visible from the B17, screened from the highway by a number of neighbouring properties, and numerous mature trees, the proposal also includes screening of the site including a natural border of indigenous trees and shrubs. The site as viewed from south and east (although from fields which are within the applicant's ownership) is fairly exposed; the proposed planting would provide some screening of the site as viewed from the south and the east, however it is considered that the dwelling would appear a dominant feature within this landscape. For these reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal. ### Party Status The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (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. ## Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2010
The proposed dwelling does not comply with Policy H14 of the Strategic Plan in that it is neither traditional nor innovative. Moreover, if it was determined that the building was innovative, it is concluded that the design of the building, which does not make use of existing stone or slate materials, would not relate well to its surroundings and the resulting visual impact would be inappropriate for its setting.
Whilst the proposed dwelling is considered to be innovative, the design is at odds with the existing dwelling in Churchtown. The proposal would thus be out of character with and detrimental to the health of the community. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005.
Decision Made : __________________________ Committee Meeting Date : __________________________ Signed : __________________________ Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee 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
