Policy Considerations G2 requires that development will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area and will not have an unreasonable impact on the local environment by reason of visual intrusion. It is considered that the scale of the development would result in a damaging visual impact on the character of the area. G3 seeks a high quality of design and it is considered that the design is acceptable. Size, Scale & Siting The proposal seeks to increase the floor area of the building by rebuilding the terrace and utilizing the undercroft for accommodation. Although the survey drawing shows a large lower ground floor, only the area up to the pillars exists, the remainder is a concrete slab. The proposal also includes a new raised roof over part of the rear of the property. Design & Use of Materials The Department’s architect has been consulted and she considered that the design is acceptable. The architects have clearly given thought to the treatment of the existing building to bring it back into good use. The roof is shown as raised over the rear, roadside elevation, not over the whole of the structure, to form a monopitch which the architects states better articulates the building externally and create the opportunity to introduce high level windows on the south/east elevation. A steel louvered Brise-soleil further emphasises the horizontal form. Cladding would be used on the south elevation of the new roof and the lower part of the building would be rendered. Impact on Neighbours The architect has advised that structural engineer’s details would be submitted with a Building Bye-Law application. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations There is adequate parking on site. Foul Sewage Disposal It is intended to join an existing private drain. Landscaping issues Significant landscaping would be required to ensure that the building integrates well into the landscape Other Material Considerations Notwithstanding the positive advice regarding the design it is considered that the proposal would have a damaging visual impact in the landscape by virtue of the fact that the terrace is to be reinstated, having been removed before 2005. The undercroft is proposed to include the extended terrace and would be utilized for additional accommodation, and this combined with the raising of the roof in one area, does not address the concerns of the previous Committee regarding the scale of the proposal, when it refused the last application in 2005. For these reasons it is therefore considered that the application cannot be supported. |