Appeal to cottage plans
AN Bord Pleanala will decide at the end of May whether permission shoud be granted for extensive refurbishment and extension to a cottage located in the centre of Rosses Point.
Sligo County Council refused planning saying the proposed development would form an obtrusive feature which would detract from the character of the existing dwelling and adjoining landscape
The council also states it would be seriously inurious to the visual amenities of the area and that it would also detract form the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties given the proposed scale, height and elevated nature of the proposed extension with overshadowing and overlooking.
The council refused permission just before Christmas to Jennifer Flannery with an address in County Meath for alterations, extension and refurbishment of an existing single storey cottage, construction of an elevated extension tot he rear at first floor level with attic gallery space over, elevated terrace space between the existing cottage and new extension and new vehicular access to the rear with parking area.
The applicant bought the cottage having been taken by its character and encouraged by the renovation and extension of two similar cottages to the west.
The council’s planners state that the proposed development was identical to the one refused previously except for the inclusion of a car parking and turning area.
They say that the extension will be much more visible from the lower promenade road to the south and it is considered that the scale, height and visual impact will detract from the character of the area when viewed from this point.
The planners also point out that while welcoming the fact that it was proposed to retain the existing cottage, it would appear that existing features of note including sash windows, doors and roof slates are to be replaced and external wall are to be rendered.
The rear wall is to be removed in its entirety. The planners are concerned that given the scale of the alterations to the orginal dwelling that its character would effectively be eroded.
The planners noted that existing works have been carried out on the site including the demolition of a shed to the rear and a lean- to structure to the side along with internal works to the cottage and external levelling work at the back. These works did not require planning permission.
It was also stated by the planners that there would be no objection in principle to an application to refurbish the cottage and build a contemporary extension to the rear but there were “serious concerns regarding the extent of alterations to the existing dwelling and the excessive scale and height of the proposed extension.”
There had also been a number of observations/ objections locally to the planning application. In a submission, Dermot Gillen, who lives closeby, stated he was surprised that works to date with regard to demolition did not require permission while he also noted that hoarding at the site was still in place despite notice being served.
In a previous submission he voiced concern about the impact the development would have on natural light getting through to the rear of his home.
Another local, Róisín Murphy also made a submission regarding the demolition works carried out to date and suggested that the scale of the development was not in keeping with the streetscape.
In her opinion she believed the development appeared to be two self contained apartments with two separate entrances.
Ms Murphy also raised concerns the development would cause to the amenities and privacy of her home, with it directly impacting on light.
A proposed ramp would pass immediately outside her windows. Other windows would also be intrusive she suggested.
Fenton Ewing, who lives adjacent to the proposed development, stated he had worries over the proposed ramp from the road to its rear.
Drawings indicated it would be about two metres above the ground floor of his house and would obstruct his gable windows.
He added the proposal was out of scale and kilter with the streetscape.