Officer Report 05/00386/CON

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:105515}} {{table:105516}} {{table:105517}} {{table:105518}} {{table:105519}} {{table:105520}} {{table:105521}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations J D R Kewley ### Consultations ### Policy

Officer's Report

The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the corner of Quay Lane and the Quay on the northern side of Castletown Harbour. The property is both Registered and within a Conservation Area.

Proposed is the installation of a dormer window on the front elevation looking out onto the harbour. The dormer appears on the front elevation as being uitl up from the main elevation wall. However on the side elevation it appears to be recessed. I will ascertain which is correct from the applicant.

I have now received further plans which clarify that the proposed dormer will be flush with the frontage (drawing reference 17.2.05A received on 25th April.

This follows on from a previous application, reference 04/1431, which was for a dormer and was refused for reasons, largely relating to the principle of any dormer in the building: "Given that there is no historical evidence to suggest that the building originally benefitted from a dormer window to the front elevation, it is considered that this addition, together with the timber pulley post and balcony represents an incongruous addition to this Registered Building and one which would detract from the authenticity, appearance and character of a Registered Building within the Castletown Conservation Area."

This latest dormer is similar, albeit smaller in width and scale and without the pulley post and balcony. The same criticisms as were expressed last time, would also apply to this.

Castletown Heritage suggest that this alteration is unacceptable in that it neither enhances or preserves the property.

I have spoken with the Conservation Officer who advised that he would prefer that there is no dormer. However, if there is to be one, it would be better as now designed rather than as previously proposed.

The proposal would significantly affect the appearance of the building and would introduce a feature which is not found in this building or those immediately around it.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 29.06.2005

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

Whilst the proposed dormer is more modest and less intrusive than that proposed and refused under PA 04/1431, it still represents the introduction of a feature which is not a characteristic either of the property as it presently exists, nor how it ever appeared. As such the proposal makes a significant alterations to the appearance of a Registered Building and fails to either preserve or enhance a

property within an adopted Conservation Area contrary to policies RB/5 and CA/4 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 57/01 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control).

Decision Made: Approval by delegation Date: ...

Signed: ... M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control