Loading document...
The site is a developed one which lies in the small estate of detached houses lying to the east of King Edward Road to the north of the Majestic Apartments site. This property is a low-rise bungalow which sits between another existing detached house and an undeveloped plot.
A previous application proposed the redevelopment of the plot in a modern form. PA 04/0819 was refused because of its modern and unsympathetic appearance in the streetscape and was the subject of a number of objections from the owners of adjacent property but not including that opposite.
That application proposed a very modern flat roofed property as a replacement for the existing.
Following the refusal the applicant's agent requested a review. The applicant's agent came in to speak to me about the best way forward and suggested that the plans be modified to provide something more in keeping with the streetsceene but incorporating some of the design features desired by his client. John Payne, the applicant's Architect noted that the reasons for refusal relate only to the appearance of the property not to overlooking or adverse impact on neighbouring amenities and as such did not feel that the scheme required any modification other than in terms of its appearance. I agreed with this last
point but advised him against designing a compromise scheme which satisfied no-one and which was a hybrid between the modern but propely designed scheme which was refused and a copy of existing architecture. He has nevertheless designed an alternative, whilst still pursuing the original scheme to Review. That application has been refused at review (27.08.04).
This latest proposal is a modern-looking property and remains roughly as originally shown but now has a pitched roof finished in natural slate. In order to keep the roof as low as possible, the pitch has been recessed into the footprint so that from the outside it looks a little as if it has shrunk. Including overhanging eaves like those on the neighbouring property would increase the pitch and heighten concerns from the neighbours, particularly the chap opposite who claims that the new scheme will "overlook my house far more than the existing property which is currently there". The new ridgeline will be 1.7m higher than that of the existing house and 0.9m higher than the previous proposal.
The inclusion of a roof certainly helps the property fit in slightly better than the previous proposal as at least it has a pitched roof. However, it is still modern and different from its immediate neighbours. However the 1982 Order does encourage us to include variety of design within our residential estates. The design is still quite different from its neighbours in terms of the shape and appearance of the roof and has no overhanging eaves.
Recommended Decision : Refused
Date of Recommendation : 21.07.2004
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst the proposed dwelling now has a roof, compared with that refused under PA 04/0819, the roof is not in keeping with others in the vicinity in terms of its profile or appearance. It is clear also that the proposal is simply the previous scheme which was designed as a flat roofed house, with a roof imposed upon the top of it which the Committee believes is not an appropriate approach to the design of a new property on this plot.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
dcreprec.doc
| Application No: 04 1255 | Page of | |
|---|---|---|
| Views Expressed - Name | Invite | Inform |
| MC GARRIGUE + JACKSON FOR APP. | ||
| ONCHAN JOHN | ||
| DOT HIGHWAYS. | ||
| GUY J. THOMPSON (for R & A's Noole) | ||
| MR + MRS AA MONTGOMERY | ||
| M2 J. JENKINS |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
