Loading document...
Application No.: 14/00320/CON Applicant: Mr Roy Proctor Proposal: Registered Building consent for variations and additional details pursuant to approved PA 11/00700/GB & PA 11/00701/CON (partial retrospective) (In association with PA 14/00319/CON) Registered Building Nos. 247 Site Address: Ballaradcliffe House Kiondroghad Road Andreas Isle of Man IM7 3EL Case Officer : Mr Trevor Wilson Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.0 INTRODUCTION: - 1.1 This application submission is further to the previous approvals 11/00700/GB, 11/00701/CON and 08/01823/GB, 08/01824CON which were commenced but not in accordance with the approvals given, as such these approvals cannot now be validly implemented. This application seeks to both retrospectively seek approval for works carried out without having first sought Registered Building Consent, in addition to seeking agreement on alternative schemes and alterations.
2.0 THE SITE: - 2.1 The site stretches between Kiondroghad Road, adjacent to Bridge End Road to the north and the A17 to the south leading into Andreas. - 2.2 Located on the periphery of the village the site represents the curtilage of Ballaradcliffe, a two storey, rendered detached dwelling which is also a Registered Building (RB247). The property, complete with its attached strip of pasture land extends as far down as the A17 on the approach to the village from St Judes, whilst to the North the property is shielded from the Kiondroghad Road, the B2, by series of mature trees. Whilst the property's western elevation faces onto open farmland, the eastern elevation lies in close proximity to the adjacent Larivane housing estate.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL: - 3.1 This application seeks Registered Building Consent for alterations and extensions to a Registered Building. Collectively, these works include amendments to the previously approved scheme in relation to the window fenestrations, original fireplaces, reinstatement of original
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY: - 4.1 The previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
11/00701/CON - Registered Building Consent for alterations and extensions to dwelling (RB no 247 in association with 11/00700/GB) - Application Approved
5.0 PLANNING POLICY: - 5.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007: Strategic Policy 4;
Proposals for development must; (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of registered buildings.
Environment Policy 32 states; "Extensions of alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted."
Environment Policy 34 states; "In the maintenance, alteration of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred".
5.2 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 'Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment' Policy RB/3 General Criteria applied in Considering Registered Building Applications:
The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-
In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building
Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. WHERE REGISTERED BUILDINGS ARE THE SUBJECT OF SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERATION OR EXTENSION, CONSIDERATION WILL ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT UPON THE BUILDING'S SPECIAL INTEREST AS A RESULT OF SEVERAL MINOR WORKS WHICH MAY INDIVIDUALLY SEEM OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE.
5.3 Planning Circular 1/98 The Alteration and replacement of windows, Category a) REGISTERED BUILDINGS states:
"If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows MUST BE THE SAME as the originals in all respects, including the method of opening, materials and detailed design. This policy will be strictly applied other than where the particular circumstances are so exceptional as to justify a relaxation."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS: - 6.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objections. - 6.2 No other comments have been received at the time of writing.
7.0 ASSESSMENT:
7.1 The application proposes a variety of alterations to the Registered Building. These have been set out as Items, beginning with Item 12. The proposals are set out in CAPITAL LETTERS and the officer assessment of each proposal sits below. - 7.2 Item 12 - Stone benches to basement store room. "STONE BENCHES TO BASEMENT STOREROOM TO BE RETAINED." This proposal is considered acceptable. - 7.3 Item 13 - Reinstatement of partition wall and window.
"THE REINSTATED WALL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING RECLAIMED BRICKS FROM ON SITE AND A SAND AND LIME MIX MORTAR AND LIME RENDER.
"THE CEILINGS ARE TO BE PLASTER BOARDED AND CONVENTIONALLY SKIMMED. "A NEW SIX OVER SIX SLIDING SASH TO REPLICATE THE ORIGINAL IS TO BE EMPLOYED. "THE SIX PANELLED GEORGIAN DOOR IS TO BE REINSTATED."
Whilst the drawings reflect the above statements, they have not indicated the remedial works necessary for compensating for the steel beam that currently spans this location. Installed without approval in order to replace the former storeroom wall it is supported at the location of the former door by a structural blockwork pier. Whilst the amended drawing indicates that this support is to be removed, insufficient information is provided as to whether the steel beam is to be retained or if an alternative provision to support the steel beam at the point of the doorway has been made. If the wall is to support the beam and floors above, it would imply that the original materials are not to be employed as it is unlikely they could support the beam and upper floor, no structural information has been provided to provide comfort in this regard.
With respect to the proposed replacement Georgian six over six sliding sash, it is considered that the proposed replacement window should preferably come from the retained stock of original windows kept on site. The dimensions of this replacement window, either new replacement or old, to be provided by the agent/applicant as indications are that this internal basement window was quite small, similar to one of the smaller windows located to the rear ground floor area.
The statement referring to the reinstatement of the six panelled Georgian door fails to sufficiently indicate that the intended door will be the same door which was removed initially and without approval.
It is not considered that sufficient information has been given to explain the works or justify them fully and as such cannot be supported.
7.4 Item 14 - Original brick basement floor.
"ORIGINAL BASEMENT FLOOR TO BE REINSTATED OVER CONCRETE SLAB EMPLOYING ORIGINAL BRICKS WITH POLISHED/GLAZED LOOK AS PER ORIGINAL."
No justification has been provided for the removal of the original floor. Whilst the reinstatement of the brickwork floor is acceptable, the drawing submitted does not provide sufficient detail as to indicate changes in floor levels as a result of re-instating the original brick floor over the new concrete floor slab, neither does it show the subsequent relation to
both the existing stone slab floor and the new build basement floor. This will have an impact on the size of the door openings and would prevent the original door (see above) from being re-instated.
7.5 Item 15 - Basement chimney breast.
"THE BASEMENT CHIMNEY BREAST IS TO BE REINSTATED USING CONCRETE BLOCKWORK AND A SAND AND LIME MIX MORTAR AND LIME RENDER TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL."
No approval was given for the removal of the chimney in the first place, and consequently the application should reflect this. Its reinstatement and the location and construction method are deemed appropriate, however, the drawing which indicates chamfered inner 'cheeks' to the proposed open fire breast is not acceptable as it does not reflect the original squared features of the former chimney opening and results in a fireplace that is more modern and not of the correct period.
7.6 Item 16 - Former basement gable windows.
"THE LEFT FORMER WINDOW IS TO BECOME AN ACCESS POINT THROUGH TO THE NEW BUILD BASEMENT. IT WILL NOT EXACTLY MATCH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE WINDOW BUT WILL BE CREATED TO A SATISFACTORY WIDTH WITHOUT CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF THE REINSTATED CHIMNEY BREAST DIMENSIONS. (REFER TO DWG 1122/PL04 FOR CHIMNEY ELEVATION)."
No justification has been provided as is required by an application for RB consent. However the principle of the loss of the windows in this location are likely to be considered acceptable if adequate justification is given. In any event it is now not possible to reinstate them given the 3 steel beams that have been placed above without approval.
7.7 Item 17 - Proposed Georgian sliding sash window.
"PROPOSED GEORGIAN SLIDING SASH WINDOW TO EAST WING BASEMENT FRONT ELEVATION TO MATCH EXISTING."
The window opening was created without approval despite officers' recommendation that no such window was previously located at this point and that its presence would disrupt the building's symmetry to its principal elevation. No supporting justification material has been submitted to support this development or the consequential impact it may have on the Registered Building. The ground levels around the basement in the area of the window and proposed door (see below) has been lowered. The applicant's agent has argued that this does not need Registered Building Consent and consequently has not included it in the application. This point is disputed. The reduction in ground level, particularly where is makes room for a hollow to access the proposed based floor has also not been included for assessment in the planning application even though it is undoubtedly 'development'. The sum of these works fails to preserve the character of the Registered Building.
7.8 Item 19 - Proposed external basement door.
"PROPOSED EXTERNAL BASEMENT DOOR TO EAST WING SIDE ELEVATION TO MATCH GEORGIAN WINDOW STYLE."
This door opening was previously created without Planning Approval or Registered Building Consent. This, together with the basement steps (see below), introduces a new element to the building which cannot readily be understood with regard to the social history of such a building. Ancillary elements, such as back door entrances were traditionally to the rear of a building, this introduces an element to the side, but which is apparent from the front and almost certainly would not have been part of the original concept of a property like this. Just as is so with other elements of this application, as justification for the works should have been provided and without that this element is hard to understand.
7.9 Item 20 - Proposed external steps to basement door.
"PROPOSED STEPPED ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BASEMENT DOOR WITH RENDERED CONCRETE BLOCKWORK RETAINING WALL. GROUND TO BE GRADUATED DOWN FOLLOWING FALL OF THE STEPS."
Having already created the basement door access without formal approval, and reflecting on the assessment of this issue as set out in the previous paragraph, consideration must be given to reducing both its visual and physical impact. Provided the ground level of the site was restored to its original level the visual impact of the door would be lessened as viewed from a distance. Additionally, the creation of the steps running alongside the end gable must also be as unobtrusive as possible which the drawings provided would seem to indicate.
The proposal, along with its failure to submit sufficient justification for the works, coupled with the intention to further graduate the surrounding ground levels in order to accommodate the steps, cannot be recommended for approval at this time.
7.10 Item 21 - Brick nibs to kitchen.
"THE APPROVED BRICK NIBS TO THE KITCHEN DIVIDING WALL ARE TO BE REINSTATED AS PER THE ORIGINAL 11/00700/GB AND 11/00701/CON APPROVALS. TO BE CONSTRUCTED USING RECLAIMED BRICKS FROM ON SITE. TO BE BONDED USING A SUITABLE SAND AND CEMENT MIX AS OPPOSED TO TRADITIONAL SAND AND LIME FOR STRENGTHENING PURPOSES AND CONCRETE SUPPORTING PADS AS PER RECOMMENDATION OF BUILDING CONSERVATION."
The reinstatement of these bricks nibs would serve as a physical reminder of the former historic dividing wall to this location in addition to providing essential support to the ends of the newly installed steel beam.
This proposal is considered acceptable.
7.11 Item 22 - Removal of approved ground floor doors.
In light of developments that have taken place to the two location points in question, the omission of doors in order to create uninterrupted flow between the new and old build sections is considered appropriate.
7.12 Item 23 - Chimney breast reveal.
"CHIMNEY BREAST REVEAL TO KITCHEN ACCESS POINT TO BE REBUILT EMPLOYING CONCRETE BLOCKWORK AND BRICKS."
When previously considering the creation of an access route at this location through into the West wing, approval 11/00701/CON drawing 04/P2 specified the removal of a 300mm section of the chimney breast reveal. This was in order to provide a suitably wide opening which could accommodate both a door and frame of acceptable dimensions.
The rebuilding of this chimney breast in light of the previous excessive removal of stone is to be welcomed and given that the walls are to be skimmed, the use of non-original material in its reconstruction is acceptable.
However, given the extensive nature of the earlier works which resulted in a steel beam being inserted through the chimney breast in order to support the upper floor chimney, this has rendered the chimney inoperable. As a result of failing to liaise with Building Conservation or Building Control, the steel beam was employed without approval. Given that the fire breast is now to be rebuilt, no reference has been made as to the applicant's former Engineer's report which was previously approved by Building Control (11/07486/DEX) in relation to such works. The application also fails to provide a suitable justification as to why the non-approved works were carried out as they were or why the works cannot be reversed.
The proposed works as submitted fail to address the issue of returning the chimney to a fully functioning state.
Officers cannot recommend these works for approval as it has a long term impact on the future use of the building, such that it cannot be used in the manner in which it was designed to.
7.13 Item 24/25 - Ground floor slab.
"THE GROUND FLOOR IS TO HAVE A NEW GROUND BEARING CONCRETE SLAB. EXISTING TIMBER FLOORBOARDS AND JOIST RETAINED AND RE-LAID OVER CONCRETE (REFER TO DWG 1122/PL04 DETAIL 1)."
The reason for this is that ventilation to an underfloor void would require airbricks in the external walls which would be an obtrusive visually. The solution sought retains the existing fabric and boarding and would be less of a visual intrusion on the building's appearance.
The Hallway and front room, designated as the library, have timber suspended floors that sit over the basement and as such cannot effectively be removed and replaced with a concrete slab, nor would this be in the interests of the Registered Building. However, the timber suspended floor to the study has already been removed in its entirety along with part of the hallway floor without Registered Building Consent or any form of prior notification/approval. Whilst a submission has been made to install a concrete ground floor throughout, no form of justification has been submitted which would both support its employment or justify the removal of the existing floors. The cumulative impact of the loss of elements of the original house serve to undermine its architectural and historic value.
The kitchen floor, on the other hand, had previously lost its original floorboards and already had a concrete floor. Although works have commenced in terms of removal of this floor in order to relay a new concrete floor, given the original floor was lost, its replacement as indicated on the submitted plans is acceptable.
7.14 Item 26 - Bedroom 1 access point.
"PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM 1 ACCESS POINT TO BE RIGHT SIDE OF CHIMNEY BREAST IN POSITION OF ORIGINAL GABLE WINDOW."
Former approvals 11/00701/CON and 08/01824/CON provided access into the west wing via a centrally created access point between the chimney breast in the rear room and the brick dividing wall from the intended master bedroom. Having instead created the access point as described above, it is considered best to not seek to reinstate that and create additional disturbance of the lime mortar bonded stonework adjacent to the chimney breast and in light of the structural issues that arose from creating a similar access point in the opposite location.
7.15 Item 27 - Proposed corridor. "PROPOSED CORRIDOR TO CREATE ACCESS TO BEDROOM 1."
Previous approvals 11/00701/CON and 08/01824/CON indicated a central corridor based upon the original floor plan running from the stairs on the first floor, into bedroom one via the former corridor. This new amended proposal greatly disrupts the building's original floor plan to the detriment of the historic layout. Instead it aims to create an overtly large en-suite dressing room to the already extensive Master bedroom which in turn would lead to further detrimental changes to the historic building plan.
As the works are not suitably justified by the applicant or shown to enhance the Registered Building, the proposed works cannot be recommended for approval as proposed.
7.16 Item 28 - Master bedroom chimney stack
"MASTER BEDROOM CHIMNEY STACK REBUILT USING ENGINEERING BRICK AND RENDERED USING APPROPRIATE LIME BASED RENDER."
As a result of the detrimental works carried out to the ground floor chimney breast, resulting in its partial demolition and insertion of a steel beam, the chimney to the west end of the master bedroom was demolished and rebuilt without seeking appropriate approvals. Whilst this new proposal seeks approval for the rebuilding of this chimney breast in engineering brick, it fails to address the issue of fully reinstating this as a fully functioning fire. As the original fire surround and back were removed without registered building consent, the importance of its full reinstatement must be stressed.
This proposal fails to address the needs of the registered building or provide adequate justification for the limited proposals set out. The Department cannot therefore recommended approval for these proposals in their current form.
7.17 Item 29 - Bedroom 4 Opening.
This proposal, including the reinstatement of the original door, door-frame, architrave and rim lock to a revised location is appropriate. However, drawing 1122/PL03, along with the accompanying cover letter submitted as part of this proposal, have not provided details as to the neighbouring bedroom door shown on the drawing which is also historically important.
7.18 Item 30 - Proposed new attic floor bathroom.
"PROPOSED NEW BATHROOM SERVICING BEDROOMS 3 & 4 IN LIEU OF REMOVAL OF APPROVED EN-SUITES (ITEM 33) TO BE POSITIONED IN APPROVED FRONT ATTIC ROOM."
The re-location of the bathroom facilities to the front and centre of the attic is acceptable in principle provided the facilities outlets do not exit to the front of the property. As no details have been provided which would confirm this, the Department cannot recommend approval for the works submitted in their existing form.
7.19 Item 31 - Re-sized rooflights. "ALL APPROVED ROOFLIGHTS ARE PROPOSED TO BE RE-SIZED TO 780 X 980MM."
Given the difference in size from those formally approved, the increased dimensions proposed would have a limited impact upon the registered building's appearance.
This element of the submission is considered acceptable.
7.20 Item 32 - Proposed rooflights.
The original number/format of rooflights to Ballaradcliffe was two off-set units to the front elevation (considerably smaller than currently fitted) and one to the rear elevation, all of which were set within the slates and unobtrusive. The proliferation of rooflights to the East and West elevations, fitted without approval, in conjunction to previous planning approval combinations which were authorised separately, have created a situation where collectively the rooflights have become excessive and detracting from the original period format.
7.21 Item 33 - Alteration to approved second floor en-suites.
"PROPOSED CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EN-SUITE BATHROOMS TO SECOND FLOOR INTO DRESSING/STUDY AREAS."
The proposed change in function is acceptable in principle provided these changes do not affect the outward appearance of the building.
7.22 Item 34 - Proposed external double door.
"THE PROPOSED EXTERNAL DOUBLE DOOR WITH FAN LIGHT ABOVE TO EAST WING ELEVATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN PLACE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WINDOW. THIS DOUBLE DOOR HAS BETTER PROPORTIONS THAN A SINGLE DOOR AND IS ENTIRELY IN KEEPING WITH ARCHITECTURE OF THIS PERIOD."
Approvals 11/00701/CON and 08/01824/CON both indicated windows to this location and were approved on the basis that they suitably replicated the symmetry of the former Georgian property. By creating a wider off-set double door access point, without approval, in place of the former permitted windows, the symmetry of the building's fenestration has been harmfully disrupted.
7.23 Item 36 - Attic floor protection.
"PROPOSED 12MM T &G PLYBOARD FLOORING TO BE LAID OVER ORIGINAL ATTIC FLOOR BOARDS. LANDING AREA TO HAVE NO PLYBOARD LAID OVER DUE TO HEIGHT DIFFERENCE."
It is of concern, that these historic floor boards have suffered considerable damage over the duration of the works carried out to date. The need to cover the entire floor in plyboard in order to protect/strengthen them should not be necessary. This is borne out by the applicant's engineer's report that assessed the floorboards and found them to be in an acceptable condition.
The Department is not opposed to the use of 12 mm plyboard being laid over the existing attic floor boards, however, a suitable means of fixing/bonding the plyboard in-place, which avoids further damaging the original floorboards, needs to be provided by the agent before approval can be recommended.
Without adequate justification this element of the proposal cannot be supported.
7.24 Item 37 - Blockwork piers. "STRUCTURAL BLOCKWORK PIERS TO BASEMENT."
The statement provided lacks details or supporting justification from which the Department can assess the works. However, based on the existing non-approved works to the basement, the placement of blockwork structural piers was presumably thought necessary by the applicant. As a result of these non-approved works to the basement, the reinstatement of historic features is now greatly impeded by the locations of these structural piers. Whilst it has been indicated in the submitted drawing 1122/PLo1 B that the pier closest to the basement entrance is to be dispensed with, no justification has been provided regarding the retention of accompanying blockwork piers.
Furthermore, the proposal does not provide sufficient information as to what is to become of the existing steel beam formally supported by the blockwork pier by the door.
7.25 Item 38 - Flues and Chimneys.
"THE STUDY CHIMNEY FIRE AND FIREPLACE SURROUND ARE STILL IN PLACE AND SHALL REMAIN. THE GUARD IS IN STORAGE AND SHALL BE REINSTATED. THE LIBRARY CHIMNEY BREAST TO REMAIN OPEN FOR THE ADDITION OF A SUITABLE PERIOD FIREPLACE IN THE FUTURE.
"THE RIGHT HAND SIDE MASTER BEDROOM IS TO HAVE BOTH ORIGINAL FIREBACK AND SURROUND TO FORM A FULLY FUNCTIONING FIREPLACE.
"THE DRESSING ROOM FIRE BREAST IS TO BE COVERED UP BUT TO REMAIN OPEN TO ALLOW THE OPTION OF BEING RETURNED TO A FULLY FUNCTIONING FIRE SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE."
The above proposals are acceptable in principle. However the proposal fails to take into consideration all of the chimney flues and fire surrounds throughout the property. It must be stressed that all fireplaces and flues, other than the former kitchen 'aga' fire-breast, that were originally capable of functioning and which retained their firebacks and surrounds should be reinstated/retained as no approvals were given for their removal/decommissioning. The
exceptions to this are the right-hand side 'library' fireplace and front left-hand kitchen fireplace, both of these fireplaces having previously been fitted with later 1930/40's pink fire surrounds and as such were neither original nor complementary to this period property. However, as former functioning fires it is a requirement that they should remain as such as the loss of original features would be detrimental to the appeal of the property given that home ownership changes over time.
As with the fireplace in bedroom 5, the fire-breasts at either end of the master bedroom, along with their original firebacks and surrounds are both to be fully reinstated and so retain the option of being used as functioning fires in the future. It is a requirement therefore that their respective chimney flues remain open and functional and their period fire backs and surrounds are reinstated.
It is acceptable that the proposed dressing room fireplace which was located in the former bathroom and boarded over, is to be again boarded over though its flue to remain open for possible reinstatement of an open fire at a later date.
7.26 Item 39 - Master bedroom. "MASTER BEDROOM LAYOUT TO BE RE-CONFIGURED."
This proposal lacks any form of justification or detail in relation to both the reasons for reconfiguring the room's layout or the potential impact it could create with regards to relocating the washbasins, shower and a W.C to the inner wall of the front elevation. The concern being the subsequent run of drainage/soil pipes which must not be permitted to exit onto the principal elevation. Furthermore, given the property's former historic layout, the creation of a new access door into the proposed dressing room is not acceptable. This proposal is both unnecessary and detrimental to the vulnerable brick and lime mortar dividing wall to this historic building.
7.27 Item 40 - Replacement windows.
"TIMBER STYLE GEORGIAN WINDOWS TO REPLACE EXISTING. SEE DRAWING PL06. CHOSEN MANUFACTURER DETAILS WILL BE FORWARDED TO BUILDING CONSERVATION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING."
The term "Timber style Georgian windows" is rather generalised and whilst the drawing submitted for consideration appears to address the necessary requirements, the sentence "Chosen manufacturer details will be forwarded to Building Conservation for approval prior to ordering" suggests changes from those submitted.
Provided that the drawings submitted are fully representative of the intended windows to be employed throughout the site, Building Conservation would recommend approval on the basis that a sample window would form the basis of a Planning Condition prior to their fitting.
7.28 Item 41 - Original attic floor boards to lower eaves.
"GOOD CONDITION ORIGINAL FLOOR BOARDS TO LOWER EAVES TO BE RE-POSITIONED TO MAIN ATTIC ROOM AREAS WHERE BOARDS ARE IN A WEAKENED STATE DUE TO DECAY.
"NEW FLOOR BOARDS THAT MATCH THE ORIGINALS ARE TO BE PLACED TO LOWER EAVES LEVEL AS REPLACEMENTS.
"PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS PROPOSED IN ITEM 36 THAT ALL FLOOR BOARDS ARE TO BE PROTECTED WITH 12MM PLYBOARD."
The proposal to replace the main central areas of the attic floor with matching original floorboards relocated from flooring beneath the eaves is acceptable.
7.29 Item 42 - Original hat and coat hangers to attic.
The original hat and coat hangers located to bedroom 4 are to be replicated and positioned as they were originally.
The proposal to 'replicate' the original timber hat and coat hangers (which had been previously removed and stored on site) serves to highlight the applicant's/agent's lack of appreciation as to the sensitive nature of the building's collective elements. It is imperative that the original items are reinstated to their former original locations.
Insufficient justification has been provided as to why the original hat and coat hangers are not intended to be reinstated in addition to providing details as to their current location.
7.30 Item 43 - Hallway Wainscoting.
"FOR ANY NEW PANELLING THAT IS REQUIRED, SAMPLES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO BUILDING CONSERVATION FOR CONSIDERATION."
The position of the hallway's original or intended replacement wainscoting is not specifically indicated on the submitted drawings (1122/PL01 B). Furthermore, the remaining original wainscoting currently 'in-situ' which is also not included on the drawings, should not be removed/replaced or otherwise disturbed without formal approval.
This is acceptable in principle with further clarification regarding location and detail which could be provided by condition if an approval was forthcoming.
7.31 Item 44 - New opening to dressing area.
"A NEW OPENING THROUGH THE EXISTING BRICK WALL IS PROPOSED WITH MATCHING DOOR AND ARCHITRAVE TO DRESSING AREA OF MASTER BEDROOM."
7.32 Item 45 - Window Shutters. "IT IS PROPOSED TO REINSTATE WINDOW SHUTTERS AND PANELLING AS PER ORIGINAL.
"NEW SHUTTERS OR PANELLING WILL HAVE SAMPLES SUBMITTED TO BUILDING CONSERVATION FOR CONSIDERATION."
The proposal as outlined above is acceptable.
7.33 Item 46 - Chimney Breast wall cupboards.
"CHIMNEY BREAST WALL CUPBOARDS TO MASTER BEDROOM AND LIBRARY TO BE REINSTATED AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY."
The reinstatement of these period features is welcomed, but formal drawings/details relating to their proposed style, dimensions and materials would need to form a condition of any Consent issued.
7.34 Item 47 - Reinstatement of basement chimney flue.
"IT IS NOT PROPOSED TO REINSTATE THE BASEMENT CHIMNEY FLUE BECAUSE MAJOR WORKS WOULD NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO REMOVE THE INSTALLED STEEL BEAMS ABOVE WHICH COULD EVEN BE MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE EXISTING BUILDING FABRIC."
It is acknowledged that the non-approved installation of 3 steel beams located above the former basement chimney breast cannot now be successfully removed without incurring further structural damage to the registered building. Nevertheless the work was carried out without consent or justification.
7.35 Item 48 - Reinstatement of front kitchen chimney flue.
"THE FRONT KITCHEN CHIMNEY FLUE CANNOT BE REINSTATED UNLESS MAJOR WORKS ARE UNDERTAKEN TO REMOVE THE INSTALLED STEEL BEAMS ABOVE WHICH COULD BE EVEN MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE EXISTING BUILDING FABRIC."
It is not proposed to reinstate the front kitchen chimney flue because major works would need to be undertaken to remove the installed steel beams above which could be even more detrimental to the existing building fabric.
In accordance with Building Control document 11/07486/DEX, the applicant had previously provided details to enlarge the access point at the stated location. According to the applicant's Engineer's report (11/07486/DEX) four 140mm x 100mm pre-stressed lintels were to be inserted into the side of the chimney breast in order to support the exposed stone work above the newly created doorway. No such details were submitted/passed to Planning or Building Conservation for consideration/recommendation. Following the excessive removal of stone from the chimney breast, which in turn destabilised the chimney breast above on the first floor, the applicant then chose to insert a steel beam through the chimney breast flue without consultation or approval from the Department.
No Engineer's assessment or justification for the employment of a steel beam to this location was provided for consideration/approval. For this reason the Department cannot accept the applicant's reason for not reinstating the chimney flue until a report into the viability of such a proposal has been submitted for consideration.
7.36 Additional Works Proposed but not Itemised.
SKIRTINGS AND ARCHITRAVES. The existing skirtings and architraves are now to be re-instated or replaced to match the existing.
This is considered to be acceptable. STRUCTURAL WORK UNDERTAKEN INCLUDING STEELS.
Installed steelwork to be retained as any work undertaken to remove could damage the existing fabric of the building.
Until such information is made available to the Department, no recommendation for approval can be made in relation to the current non-approved structural works.
REMOVAL OF ROOF RAFTERS. Roof rafters have been installed to replace previous rafters which were rotten.
Although the applicant and his agent has stated that the timber for the rafters were rotten and therefore replaced with new, the general condition of the roof timbers was assessed by the applicant's own Engineer who stated in his report (see Building Control application 11/07486/DEX) that in relation to the rafters these were 'acceptable' and that in relation to the purlins the 'existing timber is very good quality'.
Advice was given by officers of the Department that the roofing timbers should not be removed and that any decay or rot found should be cut away and if there are any doubts the owner should contact Conservation Officers. Their replacement was not agreed and no justification has been given for the works which have been carried out without approval.
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: - 8.1 This application has been assessed in accordance with current planning policies as outlined above. The application has sought to address numerous issues, and in some cases has, however it has failed to address or sought to rectify a series of both inappropriate and destructive works which have been carried out to this property without consent. - 8.2 Whilst a considerable number of the proposals submitted can be re-considered following the submission of further supporting material, this has been sought and has not been forthcoming. A number of the proposed works do not sufficiently respect the character of the Registered Building. In so doing, this application fails to comply with Environment Policies 32 and 34 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Nor does it adhere to those policies as highlighted in Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. - 8.3 While the application seeks to vary, and provide additional, details in respect previously approved applications, given the works that have already been carried out not in accordance with those approvals it is arguable that they are no longer valid or extant. In any event, an application cannot merely vary the details of a proposal: it must seek full Planning Approval and, in this case, Registered Building Consent, for the varied scheme as a whole. A sad consequence of this is that it now appears there are no longer any implementable approvals relating to this building. - 8.4 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
9.0 PARTY STATUS:
9.1 In line with the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following persons are considered to be an interested party: the applicant; the applicant's agent; the owner; Manx National Heritage; and the local authority in whose district the building is situated, in this case Andreas Parish Commissioners. - 9.2 Mr Alfred Cannan MHK is not considered to have sufficient interest in the application to be granted Interested Person Status in line with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b).
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation:
26.08.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. This application fails to take into consideration the significance of the Registered Building in association with Policy RB/5 'Alterations and Extensions' which clearly states that; "There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made... Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals... Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest". The proposed works cumulatively result in a negative impact on the building for which inadequate justification has been given.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed : Mr E Riley & Mr S Moore Presenting Officers
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown