Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the south western side of Castletown Harbour.
The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Castletown Local Plan and within Castletown's Conservation Area. The building is also registered (RB 47).
Planning permission was sought for the installation of a dormer on the front of the property under PAs 04/1431 and 05/0386 and a new rooflight under PA 06/0881.
Now proposed is the installation of a new rooflight in the centre of the front roof pitch and the replacement of the existing rooflights on each side with a larger one to match the new ones. This will now be the same size as the other two on each side and as such responds to the reason for refusal on the previous application PA 06/0881 which was that "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". There is limited information on the type of rooflight
which ought to be a Conservation or Heritage style in keeping with the setting and character of the building.
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.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. despite neither party submitting views on this application.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
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 building 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 : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
