Leodest Cottage Planning Support Statement

Ref: Form PA1.3 Section 16 Additional information in support of Planning Application Leodest Cottage, Andreas 1 Previous application

The previous application PA/05/00586/A was refused on the basis of a larger extension than is now proposed. The inclusion of a proposed garage was also cited as a reason for refusal in the notice dated 15 September 2005. No garage is now proposed.

Although sketch plans for a much small extension were submitted prior to Review under PA 05/00586/A, the refusal decision was based on the sketch proposals initially ledged.

The refusal notice however included a note that the applicant should "discuss any revised scheme such as that shown on the drawings as part of the review, with the Planning Officer".

Consultation with the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer have taken place, and the proposal now submitted are based on the sketch drawings submitted prior to Review.

2 The Cottage

The stonework of Leodest Cottage is an exceptional example of skill and craftsmanship in traditional domestic masonry, using the varying type and size of stone which was then available in the locality.

It is evident that particular time and effort was taken in the building of the main front elevation (south-east), the granite quoined corner returns, and the roadside gable. Clearly these were regarded as the most important elevations.

It is clear also that the cottage was never intended to be rendered or whitewashed, nor has it ever been, and with its remarkable coursing and varying colours of stone, the cottage is now perhaps unique as a remaining example of such craftsmanship.

It would be regrettable if the cottage cannot be retained for the future.

The construction and style of Leodest Cottage very closely echo Leodest Farmhouse, but on a smaller scale, and this pairing emphasises their historical importance in the architectural history of the Island. The stonework in the cottage is more intricate than in the farmhouse however.

3 SPMC&E comment

The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment, were supportive of the restoration of the cottage under PA 05/00586/A and the Society's comments cite the historic value of the existing building.

The SPMC&E made reference to Orrisdale Cottage (PA 94/1818) where a living room and kitchen were provided on the ground floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. The lower eaves and roof line of Leodest Cottage however, mean that a realistic second bedroom is not feasible within the existing cottage.

The limited accommodation which would be possible within the confines of the existing cottage would make the cost of restoration uneconomic and unviable. A modest "one up one down" addition as proposed would make restoration a more realistic proposition.

4 Concept for extension

The proposed extension is shown set back from the existing frontage, to allow the existing cottage to retain its identity and to maintain the definition of the two front corners.

The "set back" will also allow first floor access between existing and new, without going through the existing chimney breast which could cause distress to the gable structure and the chimney stack above.

The extension proposed is traditional in character, and sympathetic to the existing, whilst the "cat slide" rear roof slope is frequently seen in old Manx cottages.

5 Discussion with planning offices

As recommended in the note attached to the notice of refusal dated 15 September 2005 (PA 05/00586/A), sketches on which the present application is based, were discussed with Mr Ian Brookes and with Mr Stephen Moore, Conservation Officer. It is understood that Mr Moore was in agreement with the proposals and their concept.

6 Technical access

The Department of Transport (Highways Division) raised no objection to the proposed vehicular access under PA 05/00586. The road sight lines and access proposals remain the same in this current application and are based on the guidance principles of the Department of Transport.

7 Structural report

The Structural Report by John Gray, Structural Engineer (dated 29 April 2004), a copy of which is attached, considers restoration to be structurally viable.

The essence of the planning application is that the existing cottage should be saved and this could be assured as a condition of planning consent.

8 Trees

The John Gray report recommends the removal of two self seeded Ash trees growing from the base of the cottage walls. Apart from these two trees, it is not considered that any other trees on the extended site will be affected by the proposals.

The mature road side tree to the north west of the cottage will remain and the existing roadside trees to the east will be unaffected by the proposals, vehicular or otherwise.

The remaining trees on the site are contained within the existing triangular garden area.

These have been discussed on site with a DAFF Forestry Officer. Some appropriate tree management was recommended but there would be no implications arising from the proposals for the building.