Agenda item

6/2021/0048 - ERECTION OF GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCE PORCH, BAY WINDOW EXTENSIONS AT GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR LEVELS, AND JULIETTE BALCONY AT SECOND FLOOR TO FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION. CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING TO REAR (SOUTH) FOR HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH CONNECTING GLAZED LINK FROM FIRST FLOOR LEVEL OF HOUSE. ALTERATIONS TO WINDOWS & DOORS - 1 OLD COASTGUARD COTTAGES, PEVERIL POINT ROAD, SWANAGE,

Imogen Stacey

This cottage is part of a row of terraced cottages that are almost 200 years old and were built in the original Regency style in 1826 by William Moreton Pitt. The cottages have significant local and historical interest. They are located on the Dorset costal path and are very visible on the coast line from the shore, and also when at sea. All the cottages have had minimal changes made externally and any changes that have been made were in keeping and also most were made a significant time ago.

I am writing this email on behalf of my mother Diana Stacey (owner of No 2 Old Coast guard cottage) and also the other (objecting) local residents 

We feel that the plans will be very overlooking and create a further loss of privacy and light for current owners and residents.  We feel that this is an over development for the size of the plot of land and that it is not in keeping with the Regency style that the original cottage was built in. This cottage is located in a Swanage Conservation area. Many of the precedents that are being referenced as justification for these proposed changes were made well before this area was designated a conservation area (in 1970).

The proposed plans include heavy use of glass which will create a further loss of privacy. This in the form of a two-storey bay window extension at the front and a glass corridor on the first floor of the back of their cottage above a communal walkway, which has shared access rights. They are proposing to build a porch with a large glass roof window at the side of their cottage on the land of the communal walkway. The plans will mean that current residents and owners’ of the cottages in this terrace will be further overlooked and there will be further loss of privacy.

The proposed front elevation is too modern in style with more glass and also aluminium window frames (in opposition to the conservation officers’ recommendations) and not in keeping.  Part of the argument for this application has been to create symmetry so number one will look more like number 8.  The proposed front bay windows are not planned in the same style as number 8 cottage.  They are significantly larger in depth and width and much more modern in window style (using far more glass) than number 8.  On their ground floor they plan to have doors spanning the width of their bay window extension, they already have a smaller set of double doors on the front of their cottage. The side porch will not support any symmetry in the row of cottages as there is not one at the other end of the row, at number 8.

The bay window at number 8 was built over 100 years ago prior to planning consent and prior to the area being designated a conservation area, it has simple bay windows on both floors that are in keeping and is built on a much larger plot of land. They only have close neighbours on one side of their cottage unlike number one. I have also been advised by a previous owner of number 8 cottage that their bay window was built over 100 years ago before planning approval was required. The first floor bay window is in a bedroom whereas number one cottage have now changed the layout so that their first floor bedroom is now a livingroom, and as such it would be used far more often and number 2, number 3 and the watch house would be over looked far more in this proposed set up. We would therefore request that this not be approved.

The current owner of number one has already reconfigured the whole of the internal space within their cottage in preparation for these plans being approved. This plan would reduce the bedrooms within the main building. The proposal includes excavating the very small cottage garden at the back of the building to create more bedrooms/living space at the rear of their out building. We feel that this is likely to have serious consequences to the stability of the surrounding land. Part 01. in section 2.0 of the Stability Report (B.E.Willis Partnership) states that “the proposed rear extension will not cause instability to the sloping land. They have referenced that they have carried out previous slope stability reports within the Swanage and Durlston area as justification for their findings, but there is no specific mention of previous stability reports directly with in the Peveril point area. 

Part 03. in section 2.0 states that “The discharge of rainwater should be agreed with the building regulation department and the Water Authority”. I do not believe that I have seen any reports from the water authority (Wessex water) in support of this application.  I have been advised that there have been significant issues with the drains in the Peveril point area and that major works were recently required very close to this site at the rear of the Lifeboat station and the rear gardens of several of the Old Coastguard cottages as the water mains there cracked.  This resulted in the water supply being turned off. In addition, there is already an issue with rain water flowing down from the main road at the back of the cottages and into the gardens of some cottages.  There are temporary sandbags regularly placed at the top of the communal steps between number one and the watch house to prevent the water from the back road coming down these steps and then ultimately into the back garden of number one cottage. So I would say that there is already an issue with water flow onto the proposed area of land that they wish to excavate.

Also in the summary of this report they state that at the time of the survey that there is "No evidence of fissures to the sloping land or cracking to the front of the existing building associated with active landslip” but this does not state that doing this work will not cause any landslip. 

There is far less space (width/depth) in the communal passageway than is shown in the amended drawings and these proposed plans will dominate and overshadow this area.  The drawings indicate that they are planning to put up a safety railing on the side, opposite to the wall, of the new/proposed external steps entrancing their out building.  If so this will significantly restrict access in the communal passageway.

This glass corridor connecting the outside space to the main building has been described as “Light touch”; but I do not feel that this is the case as I believe it will be over 2.5 meters high and it will look very out of place against the surrounding older buildings.  If this glass corridor were to be allowed it would feel like number one cottage has been severed from the community style of the terrace. For the residents of number 2 and 3 who regularly use the shared back steps up to their gardens (located directly next to the proposed glass corridor) this will feel very claustrophobic. It will be seriously overlooked by our out buildings, over shadowing them (in size). This will also overlook the potential accommodation of number 2 outhouse (invasion of privacy). Without the glass corridor, there would be no issue with the proposed new steps and railing. Looking out of our second floor back window this area will change our historic view and not be in keeping with the regency style. 

We would question that the legal communal “right to air” above the communal passageway is being breached by allowing any structure whether it be glass or otherwise above this passageway.

The watch house will be significantly impacted by the proposed changes as the house is laid out so that the court yard and entrance is at the side and overlooks number one cottage. So the watch house will be more overlooked, and will overlook all the large oversized windows and the side porch build out with glass roof (planned also to be on the shared walkway). The watch house will also have a further loss of privacy as the proposed glass corridor at the back of the cottage will be significantly overlooking their garden and also their bedrooms at the back. 

The modernisation of this cottage could be done inside in its current footprint so that the outside remains in keeping with the terrace.  We have deep concerns that once one approval is granted it will set a precedent for others to follow, whether this is immediate or in the future. Then over time these cottages will lose their original character and style.  I have noted other planning requests online from other cottages have previously been declined.