REFUSED: PA17/11764 | Listed building consent application for removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage &artist st
- The proposed garage/studio, by virtue of its inappropriate mass and scale, taller
than the principle listed building having an inappropriate design would causes
harm to the setting and special architectural and historic interests of the Grade II
Listed dwelling 15 Steamers Hill. It has not been demonstrated that there is any
public benefit, or other justification, that outweighs the harm to the setting of
the historic character of the building. The application thereby conflicts with
Policies 12 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030
(Adopted 22nd November 2016), Government policy 58, 126, 131, 132 and 134
of the National Planning Policy Framework and the duty imposed by section 16
(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Furthermore, the refusal of this permission accords with paragraph 134 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage & artist studio. - 15 Steamers Hill Angarrack Hayle Cornwall TR27 5JB
Ref. No: PA17/11763 | Received date: Mon 11 Dec 2017 | Status: Refusal | Case Type: Planning ApplicationListed building consent application for removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage &artist studio. - 15 Steamers Hill Angarrack Hayle Cornwall TR27 5JB
Ref. No: PA17/11764 | Received date: Mon 11 Dec 2017 | Status: Refusal | Case Type: Planning Application
Historic Environment Planning West Majors
Comment Date: Tue 20 Feb 2018
The proposal by virtue of the lack of assessment of the significance of this listed building, the proposed new garage and accommodation above which is not subservient in terms of mass and scale than the principle listed building has an overbearing impact on the setting of the listed building and the inappropriate design which is harmful and this application fails to comply with NPPFP128 and 134, and policies 12 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan and section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.The Heritage Impact Assessment has taken into account the heritage assets and those in its setting but it has not assessed the significance of the listed building itself and it setting which is to a greater degree that the list descritption as required by NPFP128. This should assess the significance of the listed building and then this should inform the proposals. NPPFP128 states; 'In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an
applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected,
including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be
proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to
understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a
minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been
consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where
necessary. ..'
It is noted that the block plan and elevation in context appears to have increased the size of the rear garden ad this would appear to give a false perspective. The existing stone garden wall appears to be 50% longer than it actually is. Please can this be clarified? There is a concern that the proposed building would not be subservient to the principle listed building. The proposed building situated on slightly higher ground, would be taller than the listed buildng with a larger width than depth than vernacular buildings. Therefore the proposed building would harm the setting of the listed building.
Furthermore the design of the 'oriel' which is very wide with a strong horizontal emphasis does nto respect the vernacular architecture of the site and this is also harmful to the setting of the listed building with its vertical emphasis sash windows, with a stone wall to window proportion.
Finally it does not appear that there is an existing block plan to assist in establishing if there is a measurement error.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
National Planning Policy Framework: Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the
historic environment paragraph 126 - 141 Conservation and heritage matters.
Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (Adopted 22nd November 2016)
Policy 24: Historic environment
Hayle Town Council Neighbourhood Area was designated in April 2014, The
Neighbourhood Development Plan has passed external examination and will
proceed to referendum.
Policies HB1
- The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Paragraphs 126 and 134
PLANS REFERRED TO IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPLICATION:
Illustrative Purposes only 2017/2561/D05 received 26/04/18
Site/location Plan 2017/2561/D01B received 30/04/18
Proposed 2017/2561/D02A received 28/03/18
Proposed 2017/2561/D03A received 28/03/18
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• If you disagree with the reason for refusal on the basis of planning policy we
would encourage you to contact the case officer to discuss the matter before
lodging an appeal.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
- Permalink
Contributions
- Angarrack Defibrillator Team (25)
- Angarrack Inn (336)
- Angarrack Methodist Chapel (3)
- Carol (15)
- Gail (1)
- GordonG (12)
- Hayle Development Group on Facebook (5)
- Hayle Harbour Authority (4)
- Hayle Town Council (5)
- louise (1)
- Lynne (94)
- Mal (1)
- Neil (22)
- Neils Garden Care (9)
- Russell (21)
- Secretary - Christmas Lights (118)
- Steve (3)
- webmaster (5023)
Book page
Similar
- REFUSED: PA17/11763 | Removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage & artist studi. - 15 Steamers Hill Angarrack Hayle
- PA18/04017 | Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping. layout and scale) for erection of a dwelling
- 180414 | PA18/01106/PREAPP | Pre-application advice for use of garden as a camping site (tents only) for tourist holiday use and
- 180221 | PA18/00895 | Rear extension | The Angarrack Inn 12 Steamers Hill Angarrack TR27 5JB
- PA17/11490 | Listed building consent application for repair of existing original sash windows, front door, side and rear doors a
Similar across site
- REFUSED: PA17/11764 | Listed building consent application for removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage &artist st
- REFUSED: PA17/11763 | Removal of garden potting shed & construction of garage & artist studi. - 15 Steamers Hill Angarrack Hayle
- PA18/04017 | Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping. layout and scale) for erection of a dwelling
- 180414 | PA18/01106/PREAPP | Pre-application advice for use of garden as a camping site (tents only) for tourist holiday use and
- 180221 | PA18/00895 | Rear extension | The Angarrack Inn 12 Steamers Hill Angarrack TR27 5JB
Historic Environment Planning West Majors
Comment Date: Thu 19 Apr 2018
This revised proposal by virtue of the lack of a full assessment of the significance of this listed building, and it's setting, the proposed new garage and accommodation above which is not subservient in terms of mass and scale than the principle listed building has an overbearing impact on the setting of the listed building and the inappropriate design which is harmful and this application fails to comply with NPPFP128 and 134, and policies 12 and 24 of the Cornwall Local Plan and section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Also it is noted that the existing and proposed block plans maybe inaccurate and this should be clarified.The agent has revised the scheme as:
' Reduce the roof pitch down a little
' Hip the roof on the Steamers Hill side
' Reduce the window and door width on the hill side
' Revise the fenestration on the south western elevation facing the Listed Building
A Heritage Impact Assessment should assess the significance of the asset and its setting and then this significance should be used to inform the design and then the impact of how the scheme minimises the harm (if any) should be the starting point for any scheme.
It is noted that the block plan and elevation in context appears to have increased the size of the rear garden from the rear of the single storey extension and this would appear to give a false perspective. The existing stone garden wall appears to be 50% longer than it actually is. Please can this be clarified? This is an integrate part of the application to fully understand the impact of the proposals. The existing side access is proposed to slightly wider approximately increase from 1.2 to 1.8metres and would necessitate the removal of a boundary wall, whilst itself may or may not consist of historic fabric; it is on a historic line. The creation of a large pedestrian opening would harm the boundary of a listed building.
The existing modest single storey building is approximately 4m wide and 5 metre deep. The proposed garage is approximately 5.5 metres wide by 7.5 metre depth and a storey higher. There is no existing elevations or block plan to make an accurate comparison. The height of the side elevation of the listed building on the rear corner is approximately 4 metres or just over, whereas the proposed building is approximately 4.8 metres to eaves level.
The proposed two storey structure is by virtue of the increase depth and width is substantial a much taller and bulker structure and it is not considered to be subservient to the listed building.
This is compounded by the widening of the ladder access, approximately from 1.2 to 1.8metres and the wider building changing from approximately 4m to 5.5 metres and this brings this development much closer to the historic single storey structure and the listed building. Despite the request for additional plans to clarify this matter, this information has not been submitted.
Furthermore the design of the 'oriel' which is very wide with a strong horizontal emphasis does not respect the vernacular architecture of the site and this is harmful to the setting of the listed building with its vertical emphasis sash windows, with a stone wall to window proportion. The proposed the garage door is a metal roller door is not in keeping the setting of a listed building.
The revised scheme does not satisfactorily address the concerns raised. This revised scheme is contrary to policy.