Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of Harbour House, an existing Registered Building (RB047) 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.
Installation of rooflights to No 7, Harbour House, The Quay, Castletown. (97/00687/GB) - Application Permitted
Proposed dormer window to No 7, Harbour House, The Quay, Castletown. (04/01431/GB) - Application Refused
Installation of dormer window to front elevation to No 7, Harbour House, The Quay, Castletown (Resubmission) (in association with 05/00386/GB). (05/00386/CON) - Application Refused at Appeal
Installation of dormer window to front elevation to No 7, Harbour House, The Quay, Castletown (Resubmission) (in association with 05/00386/CON) (05/00386/GB) - Application Refused at Appeal
Replace existing roof light with a larger roof light (in association with 06/00881 CON) 06/00880/GB - Application Refused
Replace existing roof light with a larger roof light (in association with 06/00880 GB) (06/00881 CON) - Application Refused
Proposed now is the replacement of all three existing roof-lights in the roof slope facing the quayside. The existing roof-lights are approximately half the size of the proposed (600mm by 1100mm).
The Highways Division of the Department of Transport Do Not Oppose the application
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.
The style of roof light is correct and as one would expect for a registered building. My concern is the increase in size as the roof lights would be seen to dominate the roof-scape.
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.
Following the refusal of the previous application 06/00880GB and 06/008810CON for a larger, central rooflight, the applicant's agent has taken the unusual step of enlarging all three of the roof lights in this application. The photography appended to the previous application, shows a room currently served by three roof lights facing the quayside and what appears to be a window either side of the fireplace. Taking into consideration the comments of the Appeal Inspector on application numbers 06/00880GB and 06/008810CON, I consider that there is not sufficient justification for the enlargement of the roof lights and that the appearance of three large roof lights as viewed from the quayside would be out of scale with the character and status of the registered building and the Conservation Area.
I correspondingly recommend Refusal of this application.
Other than the Department of Transport, there have been no submissions made in respect of this application.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
It is considered that there is not sufficient justification for the enlargement of the roof lights and that the appearance of three large roof lights as viewed from the quayside would be out of scale with the character and status of the registered building and the Conservation Area in which the property is situated.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 8/2/07
Signed: [Handwritten signature]
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
