Loading document...
The property May Hill House, Summerland, Ramsey, is a large detached two storey property, located on the eastern side of May Hill.
The property has been zoned under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 as being within an area of predominately residential use; the site is not within a Conservation Area, however the property is a Registered Building.
Registered Building Consent for the retention of conservatory on rear elevation (In association with 07/01337GB) - 07/01338/CON – PENDING CONSIDERATION
Alterations to convert dwelling into Residential Home for the Elderly - 86/01400/B - APPOVED
The application proposes the retention of conservatory on rear elevation (In association with 07/01338CON). The conservatory has a rear projection of 7 metres and a width of 6.5 metres. The conservatory is constructed of uPVC.
The Isle of Man Victoria Society - Their comments are about the content of the drawings and do not suggest an Approval or a Refusal.
We have received no privately written representations objecting to the application.
As the property is surrounded by pubic highways, and located on a primary route out of and into Ramsey the dwelling is a prominent structure within the street scene. Because of this and as the property is a Registered Building, additional consideration must be given to ensure the existing conservatory does not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and that of the Registered Building.
The design and size of the conservatory in relation with the dwelling I considered, on balance to be acceptable. The conservatory is of a traditional design and whilst not totally appropriate, I do not consider it to be completely out of context with the dwelling, significantly enough to warrant a refusal.
With regard to the uPVC construction, whilst we would normally require the conservatory to be of a timber construction, this uPVC conservatory is not especially apparent that it is in fact uPVC, due to the thinness of the bars. Due to this, from a distance i.e. from the public highway, it is almost impossible to distinguish what the conservatory has been constructed of. Then again, from the street scene the conservatory can only be partially seen from a distance and from the east and southeast of the dwelling (Queens Pier Road). From May Hill (west of site) the conservatory and property is very well screened due to the significant boundary treatment which consists of a 2 metre high wall and hedges and trees which vary in height from 3 metres to approximately 10 metres. However it should be noted that the natural screening would obviously be less during the autumn/winter periods due to the loss of the leaves.
I have considered the content of the application with particular consideration to POLICY RB/5 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
The former Conservation Officer was involved in discussions regarding the design of this conservatory and held meetings on site with the applicants regarding this and other works they wished to carry out. There is a copy set of the conservatory design drawings on the Registered Building File which are the same as those on the Application File. Those discussions resulted in the applicants proceeding with the construction of this conservatory without Planning or Registered Building Consent. It is difficult to comment on why this happened in the absence of the input of the former Conservation Officer.
Whilst it is constructed in PVC, this is not immediately obvious from the Public Thoroughfare. Had I been involved with the design prior to its construction, I would doubtless have suggested amendments to the glazing pattern which would have involved the addition of opening lights and more modelling to the framing, one thing that is lacking when using PVC. The conservatory appears a little 'flat' and by that I mean that it lacks some of the depth of frame that you would expect from a timber version that resolutely follows the design of a period conservatory and the roof pitch could have been steeper to be more in keeping with the remainder of the house. That said, the design is along the lines of that which I would have suggested with some refinements.
I note from the Planning Officer's photographs, that there appears to be other work to the rear of the property to the right of the conservatory as viewed from the rear. No permission should be granted to this nor to any other works. I would want these works to form part of a new application.
Given the rather confusing history of the design and that the former Conservation Officer appeared to be in favour of the design, size and perhaps material, I find it difficult to recommend refusal. The design is not such that I could recommend refusal but this should not form a precedent for any further conservatories on this building.
On balance I consider the conservatory to be acceptable in this location for the reasons stated above and therefore my recommendation is for an approval.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 22.08.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. This approval relates to the submitted documents which are date-stamped 17th July 2007.
C 2. PRIOR to the commencement of any building works, a photographic survey must be undertaken to record all existing ~~internal~~ and external features of interest, such a record to be prepared in consultation with the Conservation Officer of the Department
N 1. The design and material use should not form a precedent for any further conservatories on this building.
N 2. No approval is given or implied to anything other than the Conservatory, the subject of this application. Any other works should be the subject of further applications.
Decision Made: 06/09/07 Committee Meeting Date: ...
Decision Made: 06/09/07 Committee Meeting Date: ...
30 August 2007
30 August 2007
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
