Loading document...
Architect's Design Statement to Accompany Application for Planning Approval
in respect of
External Alterations to Close-Y-Chairm, 4 The Crofts, Castletown, IM9 1LY
ISSUED: P1 05/03/2020 Issued in draft A 12/03/2020 Issued for Planning approval
20/00408
Modus Architects Limited Registered in the Isle of Man No.130736C VAT No.004666001 Reg. Office: 5 Parliament Square Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1LA T: (01624) 825852 E: [email protected] Director: Jeremy F Humphries Royal Institute of British Architects
RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects
in respect of
Appendix I Photographs
1.1. The following is a supporting statement on behalf of the Applicants, Mike and Carol Dee, to accompany an application for Planning approval for the removal of the existing pointing and wall coating, and partial rendering, of the front elevation of Close-Y-Chairm, 4 The Crofts, Castletown. 1.2. This statement is to be read in conjunction with Modus Architects drawing 1711-122. The photographs which are referred to are in Appendix I.
2.1. The house is located at the lower end of the Crofts in the Castletown Conservation Area, and is part of a semi detached terrace, with 2 The Crofts adjacent to the north east, and the detached house Garey Voallit to the south west. It is thought that the house was constructed prior to 1859. 2.2. The walls of the house are of Manx stone construction. There are two bay windows of brick construction on the front elevation. The tops of the bay windows terminate in parapets, behind which are flat roofs. The tops of the stone walls of the front elevation are also surmounted with brick built parapts, between and on either side of the bay windows, with a secret gutter running behind the parapets. The exposed south west facing gable wall is of natural stone finish. There are projecting kneeler details to the left and right hand sides of the front elevation, at the foot of the roof copings at the gable wall and the party wall with No.2, up to which the the front elevation parapets abut and terminate.
3.1. Planning approval was granted on appeal in respect of PA 18/00508/B, for the demolition of the existing rear outbuildings and erection of an extension to the rear of the house, as well as the creation of a bin store, installation of replacement uPVC windows, fencing in the rear garden, photovoltaic panels on the front roof slope, a satellite dish, a new oil tank and replacement of the existing entrance canopy. Registered Building consent for the demolition of the rear outlets was granted in connection with the forgoing application, under application 18/00783/CON. 3.2. Planning approval was subsequently granted in respect of PA 19/00305/B, in June 2019, for the following works:
This application originally sought to obtain approval for the gable wall to be rendered. However, the Isle of Man Victorian Society advised that the gable did not appear ever to have been rendered, and that it should therefore remain unrendered. The Applicants opted to defer to this advice and leave the gable unrendered. 3.3. Prior to submission of PA 18/00508/8, the stone walls of the front elevation were pointed with horizontal raised strap pointing, and painted with a modern impervious coating. The bay windows and parapets were rendered, and the strap pointing extended across the front of the bay windows. The canopy, present at the time, was a modern addition, consisting of a fibreglass or felt roof covering and painted plywood fascias, and was supported on steel gallows brackets which looked like they may have been hanging basket brackets (see photo 01). When the canopy was removed, the natural stone of the front elevation was exposed, indicating that the wall coating had been applied after the canopy was added (see photo 03). The wall coating was coming away in small sheets in various other places, and appeared to be of a type commonly applied to other properties in Castletown over the last forty years or so. A damp and rot survey, conducted by Abbey Property Renovation Limited in November 2018, commented that defects were evident in the coating, and that it appeared to be holding moisture. This observation is consistent with this type of coating, which tends to come away from the substrate, forming pockets in which water is held and trapped due to the impervious nature of the coating. 3.4. Work commenced on the property in July 2019. Work subsequently carried out to the front elevation consisted of replacement of the existing windows, removal of the the existing canopy (referred to in para. 3.3) and raising of the parapets. In preparation for rendering the facade, the strap pointing was also hacked out and the impervious coating was stripped off, exposing the original natural stone walls. The existing render was also hacked off the bays, as it was found to be a hard and brittle cementitious product that would be unsuitable as a substrate for new render. 3.5. The original natural stone to the front elevation was found to be attractive and in good condition. The Applicants expressed a preference for the natural stone to be repointed and left exposed, rather than being covered with new render, and for only the parapets and bay windows to be rendered.
3.6. The Applicants were also concerned about the aesthetic appearance of a rendered front elevation being juxtaposed against the natural stone gable elevation, especially considering how prominent the juxtaposition would be when viewed from the Crofts. 3.7. Leaving the facade stonework exposed would also eliminate certain technical risks associated with rendering the front elevation. It had originally been intended to render the stone walls with natural lime render, but there were concerns about lime rendering the brick bay windows. As brick is a harder material than stone, it is less suitable for lime rendering, and it was agreed that using sand/ cement render on the bay windows would probably be less at risk of cracking. However, this would create a potential risk of cracking occuring between the lime and sand/ cement renders. In view of these considerations, leaving the stone exposed would eliminate this risk and was therefore attractive from a technical perspective. 3.8. Discussions were subsequently held with the Planning Officer, Miss Sarah Corlett, who advised that a Planning application would need to be submitted for exposing the stonework and partially rendering the front elevation.
4.1. Having removed the existing impervious coating to the front elevation, it is proposed to render the parapets and bay windows, and to repoint the existing stonework, leaving a natural stone finish. The new canopy and frieze mouldings are to be installed as per PA 19/00305/B. 4.2. Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 is considered to be the relevant Planning policy against which the proposals should be assessed. The policy states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
The central consideration is therefore whether or not the proposals preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. 4.3. The impervious coating that has been removed from the front elevation is a modern product, having clearly been applied over the strap pointing, and after the existing canopy was installed, both of which were themselves modern additions. The Crofts is characterised by buildings with a mix of rendered and natural stone facades, none of which have painted stonework or strap pointing. These
features are therefore not considered to be in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. As such, their removal does not detrimentally affect the character of the Area and constitutes an improvement at the very least, and furthermore could be considered to preserve or enhance the character of the property and the Area. 4.4. The facade of the nearby terrace comprising Kenmure and nos. The Crofts comprises a mix of rendered bay windows and parapets, contrasting against natural stone walls (see photo 04). This combination of finishes could therefore be considered to form part of the character of the area, making the proposals in keeping with this character. 4.5. It should be noted that local residents have noted and commented on the newly exposed stonework, and expressed the hope that it will remain exposed.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown