Loading document...
'Ashdene', Sandygate, Isle of Man. IM7 3AQ 19th July 2011 Dear Sir/Madam
We live in a 2 bedroom single level manx cottage built in 1822. It has rather small rooms, hence we added a conservatory on to the building a while ago, however, we still have very little storage and no loft space.
Our garage was originally an old chapel in Sandygate and approximately 3 years ago, via planning and building regulations, we restored this building to its original pitched roof design. Please see diagram from local resident showing original building design.
Several years ago we removed some tall, dying leylandii trees which ran along our eastern boundary, next to the existing concrete base, behind the garage (please see photographs enclosed. The tree stumps are still visible for inspection if required). Our long term plan was to use this 'dead' space for a further garden structure for storage etc.
Ideally we would have liked to extend the garage back, using the accessible space and existing concrete base of 8 metres. We, however, decided that a wooden structure could be built with a lower roof line and would be more sympathetic to the environment.
We looked at good quality wooden sheds which are approved and used by the UK Forestry commission in rural and forestry areas. These sheds obviously offer a natural structure, blending more effectively with the local environment. They also offer a lower overall height and therefore would be more pleasing on the eye rather than a higher stone structure, with the only obvious disadvantage to ourselves of higher annual maintenance.
Before submitting a planning application, out of courtesy, we decided to discuss the structure we were planning with the neighbours at Sandygate Cottage (named 'The Cottage' on location plan) Mr and Mrs Knight. In total we have had 5 meetings with them.
Initially on Friday 8th July 2011 I (James Young) visited Mr and Mrs Knight and all discussed plans were agreed in principle.
On Saturday 9th July 2011 Mr and Mrs Knight met with me at our property 'Ashdene', asked further questions and raised concerns over the proposed height of the structure being 2.8 metres to the ridge.
On Monday 11th July 2011, Mr and Mrs Knight met at our property and again raised the issue concerning the height of the structure. We then moved to their garden as they were concerned about reduced light at the end of their garden which effectively would only be in the evening when the sun drops in the sky to the west. They asked us if we could reduce the height of the structure to 2.5 metres and we agreed to look into this. We also highlighted to them, at this time, that their tree canopies at the end of their garden had grown very dense and extended across the driveway between our properties and over our garage. We suggested that trimming them subject to
permission would allow significantly more light into the end of their garden nearest our boundary. I also personally offered to help them with the trimming of the trees if required. Photographs of tree canopies are enclosed.
On Thursday 14th July 2011 I visited Mr Knight at his property. After speaking to the manufacturers of the shed, a reduction of roof height to 2.7 metres was proposed. I also offered to turn the structure around by 90 degrees, meaning the ridge would not run in line with the existing garage roof but the gable end would face the boundary, thus reducing the visual impact. I also offered to purchase green roof shingles for the structure rather than our first choice of black as we were advised that they blend in far better with rural locations. Mr Knight agreed to discuss these proposals with his wife.
On Saturday 16th July 2011 I visited Mr and Mrs Knight and advised them that I had constructed height markers to simulate the height of the proposed structure. I also offered to move the structure an additional half a metre into our garden and thus further away from the boundary. We would achieve this by extending the existing concrete base across our lawn. Initially 2.7 metres in height was agreed but a comment of 'if possible lower would be nice'. At this point we discovered that Mr and Mrs Knight were in fact thinking the shed would by 5 metre by 3 metre, while I was actually proposing a 5 metre by 5 metre shed. I realised that earlier discussions regarding planning regulations about 5 metre by 3 metre sheds were responsible for this misunderstanding. Mr and Mrs Knight found the proposed 5 metre by 5 metre structure to be 'preposterously unacceptable' even though it was only 2.7 metres high and further discussion failed from this point onwards. The meeting was abandoned and they left.
Following this, later the same day, I constructed a board and rope outline for the gable end of the proposed shed in the newly proposed position for them to assess and consider (photograph enclosed). I telephoned them to advise them of this but I was told that my efforts were wasted unless I reduced the size of the shed to 5 metres by 3 metres.
Prior to submitting a planning application, I feel we have made every effort to be considerate to our neighbour's requirements and have changed the height, angle, position and roof colour of our proposed structure which has added further cost, time and work. The plans we are submitting are not ideally what we would have liked but we have tried to be sympathetic to the environment and minimise the impact on others.
In addition, at considerable cost, time and work to ourselves, we are now planting a line of bamboo along the boundary which will stay green all year round and should completely screen the proposed wooden shed from the neighbours, thus again minimising its impact on them.
As we wanted to ensure we were conforming to government rules, we requested the planning officer, Sarah Corlett to view the site and give us clear guidance of what is reasonable and the planning regulations surrounding this type of application. Ms Corlett visited on Wednesday 13th July 2011 and was extremely helpful. It is our understanding that we would be permitted to place a 5 metre by 3 metre by 2.8 metre high shed, next to the boundary in our preferred position with out planning permission. Therefore the 5 metre by 5 metre proposal would only have additional impact on our own property due to the extra 2 metre depth required onto our own garden.
We would appreciate your consideration of the above when reviewing our planning submission and also holding this letter on file if there is any issue of appeal regarding our application.
Many thanks for your assistance. Yours faithfully
Mr James Alun Young and Mrs Helen Young
Encs
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown