Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing Registered Building which sits on the southern side of the Castletown Harbour. The building is a three storey residence with accommodation within the roof space served by three existing roof lights.
The site lies within Castletown’s Conservation Area and within an area designated on the Castletown Plan of 1991 as Mixed Use reflecting the variety of residential, commercial, office and catering establishments in this part of the town.
There have been two applications of note which have been submitted in respect of this application. Both of these applications were very recent and proposed the installation of a dormer on the front elevation. The first (PA 04/1431) proposed a dormer with warehouse-style accoutrements and this was refused. The second, PA 05/0386 proposed a more simple form of dormer and was refused on appeal as this was felt to significantly alter the appearance and character of a prominent building within the Conservation Area.
Proposed now is the replacement of an existing roof-light in the centre of the front roof pitch. The existing roof-light is approximately half the size of the proposed (600mm by 1100mm). Two roof-lights of the smaller dimensions are to be retained on each side of the new light.
If the roof-light were to be flashed so that it was recessed into the roof and did not project above the slope of the roof then this would not look as out of place as it may, although the rooflight will be larger than the two either side. The submitted drawings show the rooflight projecting above the roofline by approximately 80mm. The rooflight has been designed to look like its neighbours with a central black glazing bar. This application is accompanied by a similar application for Registered Building consent on which the Conservation Officer's views should be obtained.
I have considered the content of the application with particular consideration to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
Also of consideration here, is the Appeal Inspector's decision on 05/00386/GB and CON. In it, the Inspector comments as follows:
"In this case the dormer is not necessary to accommodate a new or existing use or to ensure long term viability. There is no evidence that the building cannot continue to support its residential use without the dormer. Having inspected the interior of the building I can well understand why the appellants feel that it would enhance their enjoyment to have views from the upper floor over the harbour. However, the bedroom and small study can and no doubt will continue to accommodate those uses without the dormers as they have in the past. The view they seek to enjoy is, in essence, available on the other floors and I do not consider the justification provided is sufficiently strong to override the harm to the Registered Building I have identified" (his paragraph 13).
Policy RB/5 is quite clear in that it sets out that an Applicant should justify their application. There is no justification for these proposals within the content of this application.
In addition, the application drawings are not prescriptive in relation to the size of the new skylight which is not helpful. The property, given its location on the Quay and within the Conservation Area, is highly visible and the imbalance in size of the skylight to the others on the roof would, in my opinion, look awkward.
I correspondingly recommend Refusal of this application.
There have been no submissions made in respect of this application.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 07.07.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The property is a prominent one within Castletown's Conservation Area and is Registered. The introduction of a rooflight which is not the same size as the others on each side of it would create an imbalanced appearance and would be detrimental to the appearance of the property.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
