Loading document...
Dr J.R. \& Mr C.J. Gledhill Norbrid, Beach Rd. Port St Mary, IM9 5NG. 17 h March 2016 Rmended ffor 15) 01346
Tighnabruaich is found in the Parish of Arbory. The house lies just over 400 m from the AS Castletown to Douglas Road, with the public view of the house from this road being partly obscured by trees. It lies 90 m off Pooilvaaish Road, a single track road from which it is accessed via a driveway. The 3 bedroomed house currently on the site has been extended on more than one occasion and the original form has been altered over time. While the property was occupied when viewed before purchase, it had already fallen into a state of significant disrepair and the surrounding site had become degraded by an accumulation of discarded items and derelict outbuildings. In pre-planning advice, planning officer Mr Ed Riley expressed the view that the property may well be beyond economic repair and so the principle of a replacement dwelling would be likely to be acceptable. We believe that the building is not of particular architectural merit and that the alterations to the fenestration and to the seaward elevation are architecturally of poor form, as are the single story extensions. No evidence of any historical or social importance of the property could be found in searches at the land registry and in the imuseum; no reference to the individual property or its inhabitants could be found prior to the 1961 deed to the previous owner. As such we believe that there is no barrier to the replacement of this property under the terms of paragraph 8.11.1 of the Strategic Plan.
We wish therefore to replace the dwelling with a high quality 3 bedroomed property built to modern building standards, with a design more appropriate to 21st Century standards of living and making the most of the coastal views. After 20 years in our present home in Port St Mary, we are looking to downsize to a property that suits our needs for the next 20 years. The use of low carbon energy sources and building to a high level of energy efficiency will be a key priority. We intend to employ a high standard of insulation and the design aims to maximise the solar energy gain from south facing glazed aspects. In addition, we plan to install ground-source heating (or air-sourced if ground conditions are not suitable).
The amended design is a response to comments and advice that were provided following submission of initial plans. The planning officer had some concerns that the design was unbalanced and had reservations about supporting the design without amendments. In addition, while Arbory commissioners did not object to the proposed development they noted reservations about the 'large glassed frontage', which was also commented on by the owner of Spindrift. The extensive glass area on the front elevation has now been reduced significantly by the addition of a 1.8 m wide central chimney stack which will be clad in locally sourced stone. This section of the proposed building has also been redesigned to be more subordinate to, and distinct from the more traditional element. The fenestration on the rear elevation, which the planning officer described as rather haphazard in the earlier design, has been rationalised in the new design. Tighnabruaich lies between two properties that are replacement dwellings of very different style and scale. The amended plans incorporate traditional elements such as a cat-slide roof and a dormer window (to the rear) which reflect some aspects of the designs of each of the two adjacent properties, providing some visual coherence within the area.
The amended design consists of two distinct elements. The main part of the existing house being replaced with an element that closely reflects the size, form and proportion of the existing house, but with more traditional fenestration and external features. This would be sited largely on the existing footprint, as required by housing policy 14. The design includes aspects of siting, proportion, materials and chimney size as required by policies within planning Circular 3/91.
The second element would replace the existing single story extensions and would be sited largely on the footprint of these structures. This element includes some more modern aspects of design, appearing as an extension to a more traditionally styled building. The design for this element of the house has been substantially amended following the advice of planning officer Mr Ed Riley. A glazed connecting link to the traditional element, set-back in both front and rear elevations, has been added, differentiating between the two elements so that the form of the traditional part is not detracted from. The roofline has been further set-down, reducing the overall mass of the extension element. As such the extension element is subordinate to the traditional element and respects the proportion, form and appearance of the traditional part of the property, thus complying with the spirit of Housing Policy 15.
In addition, the proposed replacement dwelling does not measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally), thus complying with Housing policies 14 and 15.
We consider that the design we propose demonstrates a high quality, innovative design, remaining sympathetic to the surrounding environment, in a modest-sized family house. The proposed design will incorporate the re-use of materials such as stone and slate that are in place on the site where possible.
The owner of the adjacent property (Spindrift) objected to the presence of windows on the north-west elevation in the earlier design. This is a concern that, on consideration, has not been addressed in the new design. The planned windows will provide light to the rooms. At least one will be of frosted glass. While Spindrift has windows facing Tighnabruaich from an extension, a gable end and from a tower more than three stories high, we do not consider that there is a privacy issue. There is a gap of more than 40m between the properties, twice the distance usually considered to be sufficient for planning purposes. There is also a row of mature pine trees between the properties (shown in submitted photographs) which does provide some natural screening. We would be happy to consider planting additional screening vegetation along the line of these trees if this would alleviate concerns. The owner of spindrift also made comment regarding a restrictive covenant to the benefit of Spindrift. While this is not a relevant planning concern, we would emphasise that the comment is somewhat misleading as the deed in question does not apply to the site of the proposed replacement dwelling.
The proposed development will involve significant economic investment in the area and will replace an unsympathetically extended, poor quality dwelling, which was fast becoming an eye-sore, with an attractive family home representing an environmental improvement both in terms of its visual appearance and in energy efficiency. More importantly for us it will allow us to make the most of a wonderful location, with its unique natural history, which will be our home for the foreseeable future.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown