Loading document...
The incompletely defined site represents the curtilage of an existing building located on the northern side of Patrick Road. The site is designated on the St. John's Plan as residential. There is on the site an existing property which began life as a garage, permitted under PA as a replacement for the other existing garage nearer to Bluebell Cottage and to be used in association with this property.
Planning history:
PA 98/1019 was refused on appeal for the reason that the decision on the proposal rested upon "the effect of the proposed house on the appearance and character of the area" (paragraph 8) and he concluded that "the whole site would appear over-developed and cluttered and out of keeping with the surroundings" (paragraph 9). This proposal involved the use of the ground floor as a hall, dining room, kitchen and two bedrooms with an extension accommodating a bathroom and porch and a lounge upstairs.
Since then, the building has been the subject of successful applications for conversion as it stood to tourist accommodation, installation of bay window, erection of a conservatory (the first application refused on the grounds of undermining the stability of the river bank) and the change of use of the building to permanent accommodation. The dormers were refused on the grounds of detracting from "the simple form of the roof" and would be out of scale with the existing building. The Inspector reporting on the conservatory noted that it was not visible from any public vantage points. Perhaps the most important is the most recent application for the use of the building as a permanent residence where the Inspector noted that the site is within a residential area on the St. John's Plan. He also notes that there would be little difference between tourists using the premises than residents. He doesn't mention anything about extensions. He notes that there is sufficient space to park and turn "a car".
Now proposed is an extension on the side of the property to provide a larger lounge and another larger room behind it and space in the attic which is not shown as part of the existing bedroom but certainly could be. A trap door is shown to gain access to this from the space below (the room behind the lounge).
The Commissioners object to the application, suggesting that the development would be over-intensive and would not fit in with its surroundings, presumably harking back to the refusal of PA 98/1019 which proposed a smaller extension. This is a consistent stance and I can understand the Commissioners' concern that the application has achieved something by stealth, which was refused in the first instance.
There has been a creeping development of this site, beginning before the erection of this garage, with the incremental increase of Bluebell Cottage itself and then the erection of this garage at the other end of the site from the dwelling. However, there is just about space for two cars alongside the dwelling, although blocking vehicular access over the bridge: I suspect that the applicant uses the
field behind to park as the photographs show a car coming from the field over the bridge. The Commissioners' concerns about overdevelopment are in relation to the site on which the structure is built rather than taking into account the field behind which the applicant's agent has taken into account in his calculations, illustrating his misunderstanding of how development is viewed. It won't be the most spacious plot in the world but there is the amenity space to the rear. the properties alongside - Kerrokeil and Kerrow Keil have the been extended significantly over time and whilst not as intensive as what is now proposed, the sites are very different in size and shape and nature.
I would struggle to defend a refusal of this application on the grounds of over-intensity or lack of amenities.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and extensions shown in drawings PB/13/7/2 and /3 both received on 20th July, 2005.
N 1. The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
