Replacement Dwelling Justification

Reasons for application

• Initial application 04/02061/B was rejected at appeal: one of the main reasons being the increase in the size of the dwelling.
• Planning application files 1/1949 for neighbouring property, Ghat-e-Cashin, were “mislaid” at the time of our appeal; preventing us from conducting a sound appeal.

Planning application 1/1949 shows the original Ghat-e-Cashin Cottage over two floors was only 52sq mtrs and the replacement dwelling was given detailed planning, ref 2/2436, for 344sq mtrs: an increase exceeding 600%.

The planning inspector believed our application constituted a much larger increase in size in relation to the original cottage. Although this looks a one storey cottage it has two bedrooms upstairs with two gable windows with full headroom of 35sq mtrs and four rooms downstairs of 70sq mtrs making althogether 105sq mtrs in total. The new replacement dwelling worked out at 309sq mtrs- plus the garage a modest 350% increase.

In the Planning Inspectors conclusions he stated” As far as the Ghat-e-Cashin replacement dwelling is concerned I do not accept that the increase was as great as the appellants allege, given the paucity of information available and the available photograph shows a two storey dwelling which appears to have a larger mass than Kafue Cottage”. Clearly this was not the case.

Siting of replacement dwelling

There are several reasons why the proposed new dwelling should be sited further into the area:

Further to an on site meeting with the Department of Transport (DoT) Rivers Department:

• The DoT Rivers Dept has a requirement of a 9m grassed zone free of trees along the river that runs through the land; access is required behind the existing cottage to clear the river of debris and silt. Any replacement building on the present position will compromise plant access and result in an objection by DoT Rivers Department (the affected area is highlighted on the plan).
• The Planning Inspector at the appeal for the previous application stated that “given the close proximity of Kafue Cottage to the road, slightly more setback within a more modest curtilage could be justified”.
• Therefore we have positioned the new proposed dwelling directly behind the existing cottage.
• The proposed position is in keeping with both adjacent properties.

Visual Impact

Page 70, policy 14, of the new Strategic Plan stated: “consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where by its design or siting there would be less visual impact”.

We have taken into account planning circular 3/91 in the design process, and have tried to address the inspector’s remarks made in the previous planning appeal.

• The proposed new dwelling is being built of stone with a slate roof which will have less visual impact on the area than a rendered building.
• The design of the proposed building is traditional: whereas the existing cottage is certainly not of a traditional design.
• The existing 25 meters of trees must be kept to screen the building and we propose to plant complimentary trees on the north side of the site reducing visual impact still further.
• The present owner of Ghat-e-Cashin has similarly planted trees along the south side of his boundary screen property.

Curtilage

• We have reduced the curtilage by 50% from 1.7 acres to 0.85 acre.

Carbon Footprint

• Building the proposed dwelling in Manx stone from Earystone Quarry with a slate roof will outlast most houses by a factor of 2 or 3 thereby reducing replacement energy costs.
• Insulation to a far greater standard than is required i.e. 400mm of roof insulation instead of 200mm and greater insulation in the walls and floor.
• Sustainable timber windows.
• Triple glazed windows with ‘K’ glass to the highest draught-proof standard.
• We propose to run the central heating and hot water from a ground source heat pump reducing the power requirement by four times.

All these points will result “in an overall environmental improvement” (as per policy 14).

We hope the committee will look favourable on our design which we hope will lessen the visual impact and incorporate 21st century technology; thus reducing our carbon footprint and building a dwelling to last into the next century.

Yours sincerely

R J Morris