Loading document...
12th August 2020 Our Ref: rd/18_mlOM_138 Sarah Corlett Planning \& Building Control Directorate Department of Environment Food \& Agriculture First Floor Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF
Dear Sarah,
As discussed, please find below information to accompany the current planning application with relation to the condition of the existing buildings. The comments to the planning application with regards to the existing buildings suggested that the planning application had not considered the capability of the renovation of the existing building(s) in sufficient detail. The condition of the existing buildings and their re-use was considered at the outset feasibility stage, where we also sought structural advice on the buildings (although not formally in a report). The contents of this analysis was not contained in the Planning \& Design Statement as we had not believed the existing buildings to be of architectural or historic interest as per PPS 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic environment of the Isle of Man. By way of further information we now include in these document:
As mentioned above, at the feasibility stage and notwithstanding the structural condition of the buildings, the re-use of the existing fabric was considered. As a consequence of a significant level change it was not considered feasible to join the buildings in any coherent way which consequently would mean extensions to the existing which would most likely have led to it losing it's vernacular appearance. When the analysis of the buildings both structurally and dimensionally were assessed it was clear that re-use of the existing was unfeasible and would not only be economically prohibitive, but the result would essentially be a defective, non-energy efficient building.
We therefore approached it from a replacement dwelling, re-using existing material on site and ensuring the dwelling meets the highest energy and environmental and ecological levels as detailed in the Planning \& Design Statement.
As always, if there is any further information you require, please do not hesitate to get in contact.
Yours sincerely
rory donnelly | creative director Maison IOM Architects
What follows on the other PDF is a report by BB Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers.
This identifies a substantial amount of work that would need to be undertaken to the property to make the building capable of occupation, with many elements requiring entire replacement, likely to exceed the cost of a replacement dwelling which is compliant with modern building regulations. The result of this work is not only economically prohibitive but results in a dwelling that is not likely to meet modern living standards and levels of energy efficiency (as further detailed below).
The report highlights further significant latent issues if any internal modelling or extensions were applied to the existing dwelling as well as the necessity for further foundations.
The report for completeness, also considered the external buildings, which have all been altered with modern additions. These have significant structural challenges and expense to bring them back to even adequate outbuildings, as the report mentions, to make into living accommodation is likely to be prohibitive.
The plans below show the existing measures of the current dwelling on the site. Also shown is a minimum level of additional insulation required in an effort to meet modern building standards¹ and building regulations.
As these plans show:
Clearly any internal remodeling will require extensive structural works and would leave the dwelling without sufficient space to meet that of a modern family.
The desires of the client are to meet an elevated level of energy efficiency as it is in-keeping with their business initiatives where the reduction of CO₂ is one of the fundamental goals as is the direction of travel of the Isle of Man Government. With that in mind, it is likely that the insulation and additional works required would further compromise the dimensions of the building which are already insufficient.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of buildings of Manx vernacular being demolished. Some identical in many ways to this building with a vernacular fabric and farming history, (albeit now redundant) and some with modern extensions, (as is the case for the external buildings at the application site), which whilst it may have altered its fabric and appearance did not diminish the history.
In all of these examples, replacement dwellings were deemed acceptable for a variety of reasons.
6.3 In terms of paragraph (b) of HP 12 i.e. is the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. The existing property cannot be seen from public view and can only be seen when stood immediately adjacent to it. The front elevation is attractive and retains its original form, stone finish and windows. The roof appears to have been re-roofed with an artificial slate. The rear elevation has been altered rather unsympathetically with the introduction of picture windows and poor examples of artificial slates. Planning permission (12/01695/B) was also previously granted (now expired) for a number of contemporary extensions to the rear elevation, which would have dramatically changed the appearance of the property. 6.4 The applicants in terms of this issue have indicated: "With regard to the principle of replacing the existing dwelling, and in consideration of Housing Policy 12, the existing house is currently occupied (so has not lost its residential use) and is not of architectural or historical interest. Whilst it is not considered to be generally of poor form, various works that have been undertaken in the past have substantially reduced the appearance of the traditional elements, most notably the use of fibre cement tiles to the roof (it is noted that the annex that is proposed to be retained as a bat roost still has a slate roof) and a variety of non-traditional glazing to the rear elevation (see attached photograph). In any event, it is certainly considered that the proposed new dwelling and residential curtilage have a 19/00875/B Page 10 of 20 substantial number of advantages over the existing that, on balance, would override concerns regarding the loss of the existing dwelling."
The existing cottage is a good example of vernacular architecture other than the modern windows referred to in 6.5 above. It would indeed be preferable to retain the existing. However, the owners of the property report that the structural condition of the building is not good and despite efforts and expenditure to remedy the various issues, the wet and dry rot persists and that structural timbers are deficient. If the existing property is to be occupied considerable work would need to be undertaken. What would remain would still be a modest property with limited head height in some of the rooms. It is likely given the condition of some of the structural elements that they would need to be replaced either involving considerable cost and engineering solutions to retain the remaining fabric or replacing that as well. A report has been prepared by someone experienced in the building industry and an architectural technician, based upon an internal and external inspection. This reports that there are no significant foundations to the main walls and load bearing partitions within the property. Remedial work would involve the underpinning of all of the walls and the insertion of a damp proof membrane carried out in 1-2m lengths to stabilise the structure. In order to install a damp proof membrane, the floor level would need to be lowered beneath the existing wall foundations. The ceiling height on the ground floor is below habitable height and would require replacement of the undersized ceiling joists and floor joists to the first floor. It reports that all of the timbers have rotted in the walls would require complete replacement. Whilst the property was re-slated between 20 and 30 years ago, the existing timbers were not replaced and the bearing timbers of the A frames and purlins have rotted within the walls. The roof timbers are also undersized and there is no insulation to the roof or bedroom ceilings. To achieve habitable room heights at ground floor level the first floor ceiling heights could only be achieved by raising the whole roof and lifting the walls. They estimate that the remedial works would be equivalent to constructing a completely new house which would benefit from complying with Building Regulations.
The assessment of this application concluded that while the Manx National Heritage and the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society sought to retain and refurbish the existing house due to its historic interest that the Conservation Officer confirmed that the building was not of significant interest to warrant registration and that its demolition and replacement would be acceptable. The assessment further concluded that the siting, size and design of the property including the extension of the residential curtilage would not result in any adverse visual impact and would retain the character and quality of the countryside in line with Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 14. The restoration of the existing barns was also considered acceptable as it would seek to reduce the need for new build development while retaining the character of the existing building. "Ancillary Integral buildings included in size"
Dwelling adversely altered including single and two storey flat roofed extensions, inappropriate front porch extension, and removal of original sliding sash windows with brown UPVC casement windows, all of which impact the character of the dwelling, to such an extent which it is now considered the existing dwelling does not have much of its original architectural or historic interest.
HP 12 not considered despite building being of Manx vernacular. Age form and size no longer suitable in the Support Docs.
HP12 not considered despite building being of Manx vernacular...its traditional countryside vernacular origins remain evident. That said, though, the dwelling has fallen into some disrepair and, while its form is neatly proportioned, the fabric of the building has certainly seen better days. It is unclear when the property was last lived in, though it certainly does not appear to have been abandoned.
In terms of the second arm of the policy, the original dwelling is considered to have architectural and historic interest. The original dwelling is of an attractive and traditional design. It has been somewhat compromised by the later single storey extension which is not particularly sympathetic and the original timber vertically sliding sash windows have been replaced with UPVC top hung sash windows. Notwithstanding, it still remains an attractive building. Having regard to the earlier approvals which would have substantially altered the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the fact that the original dwelling has been somewhat altered and in some cases unsympathetically so, and that the dwelling makes a limited contribution to the countryside being set back some distance and screened from the highway, it is considered that it would be difficult to make a case for the retention of the dwelling on grounds of its architectural and historic interest. It is therefore felt that it is acceptable in principle to replace the existing dwelling.
In terms of the second arm of the policy, the existing dwelling is considered to have architectural and historic interest. The original dwelling is of an attractive and traditional design. It has been somewhat compromised by the commencement of application 08/02083/B, which was for a two storey side extension, similar to the extension to the northern gable of the main dwelling now proposed. The works did commence; however, it was found that the property had considerable defects which halted works. Notwithstanding, it still remains an attractive building, albeit not of such quality to warrant it retention.
The existing dwelling was once a very traditional Manx Farmhouse with three upper windows over a central doorway flanked either side by a single window. However, what appears as a 1930's two storey bay window has been erected to one side of the property. With the exception of this alteration the property still retains its Manx vernacular design which includes a pitched natural slate roof, two gable end chimneys, a central doorway, verge details to both gable ends and a painted render finish. It should be not the dwelling is in a very poor state of repair, majority of windows with no glazing, no door, and being overgrown with plants/bushes etc. The dwelling could not be occupied without substantial works being carried out to make it habitable.
General Policy 3 sets out that one of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside is "(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)". This leads to a requirement to assess whether the demolition and replacement of the dwelling which is the subject of this application is acceptable. As identified within paragraph 1.3 of this report the existing dwelling is of a traditional design, proportions and finish, albeit in a poor state of repair
Accordingly, with the principle being established, it remains to be assessed whether the proposed replacement dwelling would be acceptable particularly when considered against the requirements of Housing Policy 14. The policy sets out that replacement dwelling in the countryside should be no more than larger in terms of floor area than the dwellings which they replace and should be designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. 6.3 In this case the applicants indicate that the existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 387.2 square metres which includes the existing farmhouse and outbuilding/garage. If this outbuilding/garage is not included within the calculation, then the existing dwelling has a floor area of 265.4 square metres. 6.4 The proposed dwelling would have a floor area of 540 square metres which equates to an approximate to either increase in floor area over the existing property if the existing rear outbuilding/garage building is taken into account or increase if the existing outbuilding/rear garage building is not included. Accordingly, depending
if the rear garage/outbuilding is taken into account the proposal could be considered either within or out of the 50\% threshold indicated within Housing Policy 14, and therefore could be considered to be contrary with this aspect of the policy if the rear outbuilding/garage building is not included. 6.5 Housing Policy 14 specifically covers this issue and indicates that floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings. However, it is considered given the rear outbuilding/garage is physically attached to the main dwelling and reads as part of the main dwelling, it should be included. The applicants have also explained that the building was used as a garage by the former occupants of the dwelling. They also highlight that the building is a traditional stone building which could potentially be converted into additional living accommodation in line with Housing Policy 11 (conversion of rural buildings).
"The applicants have indicated that the existing dwelling was constructed in 1908 (although another dwelling existed on the site previously). They indicate that the house is of a solid brickwork construction, having no damp proof coursing and it built off the ground with no foundations." "The existing dwelling whilst not of poor form, is not of a quality which is considered to be worthy of retention. It has traditional proportions and appears as a traditional Manx farmhouse, although its finish, age and design are not of an original farmhouse property which you would generally expect to see in the countryside."
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown