Alterations, erection of extension and combination of existing dwellings to create a single dwelling with housekeepers accommodation, enclosed swimming pool and demolition of existing garages and construction of green roofed garages (In association with 14/00090/CON)
Site Address:
Braeside & Leafield 58 & 60 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AT
Case Officer:
Mr Edward Baker
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
07.02.2014
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF THE LEVEL AND NATURE OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
The Application Site
The application site comprises two houses known as Braeside and Leafield, Registered Buildings (RB123 & 124 respectively) sited on the southern side of King Edward Road, in Onchan on the northern fringes of Douglas.
Braeside and Leafield form part of the built frontage to the south side of King Edward Road. They are adjoined by neighbouring houses on either side as well as by the rear gardens of the two dwellings at the rear. Braeside and Leafield are on lower ground that the adjacent King Edward Road and are each accessed via a separate entrance from the highway and down as short drive. Each house has a detached garage and there is a parking area and hard standing immediately in front of the houses. In front of this is an area of green space behind the roadside hedge. Both properties have reasonable sized gardens to the rear which step down from a terrace area at the rear of the houses.
Braeside and Leafield are two storey, semi-detached dwellings, in the Arts & Crafts style finished in white painted render with black timberwork and a large, overhanging roofscape, typical of the Arts & Crafts style.
Both houses were added to the Protected Building Register on the 11th September 1989 by reason of its Architectural Interest as an example of the work of an internationally acclaimed Arts & Crafts architect, Mackay Hugh Baillie Scott. The following is the appraisal document forming part of the registration documentation:
'Braeside and Leafield, King Edward Road, Onchan
These were one of two pairs of semi-detached houses that the notable architect, M. H. Baillie-Scott, had built on the Isle of Man (the other and earlier pair were built in Victoria Road, Douglas, in 1895-96 as speculation).
The houses were built by McAdam, notable for two different reasons. (1896-98) that a group of designs the builder, in 1896-97, and are firstly, it is during this period by Baillie-Scott, both executed and unexecuted, represent the departure from the Arts and Craft manner of his earliest work and provide the first sample of what is called his 'mature' style (James P. Kornwolf - M.H . Baillie Scott and the Arts and Craft Movement, Baltimore 1972). He turned from half-timbered and brick interiors and exteriors to ones painted white or covered by a harled roughcast. At the same time he widened his range of design with the semi-detached houses (as well as multiple-unit houses, a school at Peel and Onchan Village Hall.
The two houses were also significant as part of the Cliftonville Estate which was proposed (in 1892) to be built as a satellite town to Douglas and which was to extend to the very top of Banks Howe. In fact only three houses were ever built as part of this development; the two referred to here and what is now the central core of the Majestic Hotel (this was built in 1892-93, by R. E. Cain for a Mr. Glen Andrew (or another account has it as Mr. C. McAndrew), who was a wealthy Lancashire manufacturer and who originally intended to use the building as a holiday home. This was the largest house of a Baillie-Scott Design that was built on the Island and he designed the building to resemble an Elizabethan Mansion, with 6 acres of grounds. It became a hotel in 1920 and subsequently was altered and extended).
Whilst only the three houses were built at the time, the proposed estate laid the ground for what was to become a significant part in the development of Onchan. Indeed, in the 1930s the style of Leafield's and Braeside's architecture was copied by Messrs. Lomas and Barrett (but much diluted) in the adjoining semi-detached houses.
In relation to the design of the building, one of the most notable aspects of the pair of semi-detached houses in Victoria Road, Douglas, had been the quality of the facade. With Leafield and Braeside the qualities of the facade were extended to an entire design. The plans for these two houses were similar to the earlier Douglas pair, although the rooms were fitted into a constraining rectangle and similar to C.
F. Voysey's contemporary work he had the house covered entirely in roughcast (this was the material that characterised all Baillie-Scott's subsequent work until about 1907). Also prominent are the broad horizontal proportions of this building, and its splayed corners which again appear to owe some debt to Voysey's work (notably this time with Voysey's cottages at Brackley in Northamptonshire).
The Proposal
This application seeks planning approval for the following:
Amalgamation of both Braeside and Leafield into a single large dwelling house with house keeper's accommodation;
Erection of minor extensions, detached shed and minor external alterations to the new house;
Erection of enclosed swimming pool in the rear garden alongside the western boundary ; and
Demolition of existing single garages and construction of green roofed garages within the green space at the front of the new house.
The Planning Authority is also concurrently considering an application for Registered Building Consent for the associated works, including various internal alterations to the dwellings (approval for the associated works (14/00090/CON).
Both applications follow pre-application discussions with the planning officer and conservation officer.
Planning History
The following applications are considered relevant as they illustrate that alterations have been carried out to the properties in the recent past:
08/01792/CON - Registered Building consent for the installation of a replacement window (In association with 08/01791/GB) Registered Building Nos. 124, Leafield, 60 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
08/01791/GB - Installation of a replacement window (In association with 08/01792/CON) Registered Building Nos. 124, Leafield, 60 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
07/00518/CON - Registered Building Consent for the installation of replacement windows and door to seaward elevation Braeside, 58 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
07/00517/GB - Installation of replacement windows and door to seaward elevation Braeside, 58 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
06/00715/CON - Registered Building Consent for alterations and repositioning of internal kitchen doors, Registered Building Nos. 124, Leafield, 60 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
06/01561/CON - Registered Building Consent for the re-positioning of internal kitchen door, Registered Building Nos. 124, Leafield, 60 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
94/00052/B - Replacement of windows, Leafield, King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Refused
88/00772/B - Kitchen and garage extension, Braeside, 58 King Edward Road, Onchan - Application Permitted
Planning Policy
The Onchan Local Plan 2000 identifies the area as being in residential use.
As Braeside and Leafield are Registered Buildings, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32 and 34. In addition, Policies RB/3 and RB/5 from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) are also relevant to the consideration of the application. These policies are reproduced in full below:
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007
Strategic Policy 4 states:
'Proposals for development must:
(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas, and sites of archaeological interest;
(b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
(c) not cause or lead unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
General Policy 2 states:
'Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
(e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
(i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
(j) can be provided with all necessary services;
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
(l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
(n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.'
Environment Policy 32 states:
'Extensions or 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 or extensions of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.'
RB/5: Alterations and Extensions
'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 or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Registered Building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption
against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.
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 affect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence.
Representations
Onchan District Commissioners - objection:
'The proposals are not in keeping with the character of the registered building.'
Highways Service - no objection.
Manx National Heritage - comments as follows:
Interior
The majority of the proposed internal changes are located within Braeside, the property which seems already to have undergone most change. The principle of such an approach is to be welcomed.
A small number of non-structural partitions are to be removed on the ground floor below picture-rail height, such that the approach preserves and, in the case of Braeside, restores the ceiling detailing and decoration.
More major alteration is proposed in relation to the structural wall dividing the two properties, involving insertion of structural stonework and the rebuilding of the remainder of the wall on ground and first floor to accommodate re-routed chimney flues.
This work will involve the removal of original blank masonry but will also require an engineered solution to support the central chimney stack and additional alterations throughout the height of the wall.
It is noted that the overall scheme seeks to replace original decorative finishes where these have been lost and to restore distinctive features, such as a fireplace, and this intent is also to be welcomed.
Exterior
External changes to the two dwellings are limited to the already altered service areas at either end of the building; the removal of non-original garages and their replacement with green-roofed carports against the roadside boundary, and the creation of a partially sunken indoor swimming pool along the western edge of the rear garden of Braeside.
Some tidying of the service areas and the removal of the garages will be positive achievements; the new car ports are a novel approach, although care should be taken that they do not detract from the public façade of the dwellings. The proposed partially-sunken swimming pool is possibly the most radical of the proposals, but some visual separation is achieved between it and the south façade of the dwellings, thus maintaining the integrity of the classic oblique view from the south east corner of Leafield's new rear garden.
Overall
In justification of their scheme, the architects have referred to several of Baillie Scott's later commissions for single detached residences built in England; the semi-detached pairing of Braeside and Leafield are in contrast part of Baillie Scott's early formative oeuvre on the Isle of Man. Such a comparison may be difficult to sustain.
The original Registration file for the properties lacks detailed assessment, which will impact on the Planning Authority's ability to consider the implications of the various aspects of the proposals.
It is further noted that whilst the planning application quantifies the survival of interior detailing, decoration and finishes, there is no evaluation of quality or significance, or comparison with the rest of Billie Scott's Manx oeuvre. Together with the absence of an assessment of significance in the Registration file, this renders an informed decision difficult.
Isle of Man Victorian Society (received in connection with the application for Registered Building Consent, 14/00090/CON) - objection:
The basis on which the scheme has been prepared is flawed.
All properties by Baillie Scott on the Island are very important as they represent the cradle of his career and the evolution of his architectural approach.
This pair of semi-detached houses is pivotal in his career and second only in importance to the Red House, Victoria Road. Braeside and Leafield are important nationally and internationally.
Does not agree with the applicant's citing of precedence in relation to alterations to other Baillie Scott buildings in England.
Many other Baillie Scott buildings have been mistreated which places emphasis on the preservation of these two houses.
The proposals would systematically destroy the integrity of the properties and send them down the same track as the two nearby Baillie Scott buildings, View Park Mansion (The Majestic) and the Groudle Hotel.
Reference is made to the historic importance of Braeside and Leafield in the development of Baillie Scott's work, as well as their historic context.
The buildings have international significance. They were the first pair of houses to be designed with true Arts and Crafts elements. They are pivotal in Baillie Scott's career.
The proposals will destroy the character of the garden.
The proposed green garage at the front of the houses will mask views of the front main elevation. It will spoil public views of the houses as well as destroy the original concept of open space conceived by Baillie Scott.
Concerns about the structural implications of building the swimming pool so close to the boundary.
There is no information on whether the pool can be emptied when required.
There is a lack of detail relating to the position of the flue for the pool's heating apparatus or extension of chlorine-laden air from the pool room.
The proposed internal alterations will totally destroy the importance of this pair of semi-detached houses.
The installation of squared panelling in the corridor is totally wrong for the period.
The creation of an inglenook is totally wrong for Baillie Scott's concept for these houses.
The proposed fireplace is a bedroom fireplace and not what Baillie Scott would have installed in a principal ground floor room.
The installation of a fixed lay light to the hallway above door height is not what Baillie Scott would have incorporated in a house of this type and period and destroys the simplicity of his design.
The use of folding partition screens would not have been installed in a house of this style and period and again destroys Baillie Scott's concept.
The scheme should allow internal alterations to be reversed in the future.
Diane Haigh Architect, Cambridge, England - comments as follows:
They have been sent details of the applications by the Isle of Man Victorian Society in view of their involvement in the work of M H Baillie Scott.
Both Braeside and Leafield are held in high regard, the architect having visited the houses for inclusion in their book, 'Baillie Scott; the artistic house'.
The applications should be evaluated in line with conservation best practice as internationally accepted.
They would normally expect a Statement of Significance which summarises the cultural and heritage values attached to a place and how they relate to the physical fabric, context and setting of the buildings. This is a serious omission and makes rigorous assessment of the proposals more difficult.
Key points would include - both properties' place in the early work of Baillie Scott who went on to have an international career as an important Arts and Crafts architect; his exploration of different types of "the smaller artistic house" including semi-detached houses; their part in the history of development on the Isle of Man; and the current state of survival of the original houses and their setting.
The applicant's approach is to redesign the houses as a single unit, rather than simply removing a section of wall to join the two. The ground floor is considerably reorganised, losing all sense of the original house plan. At first floor the creation of a new central bedroom involves removing the party wall together with existing flues and the reshaping the roof structure. A number of new bathrooms and dressing rooms are inserted.
The original setting of the house is also considerably affected by the addition of a large new garage along the boundary to the street which will hide the house from the road.
It is inappropriate for the architect to graft Baillie Scott's later ideas onto his earlier work and it devalues the importance of his early work. This kind of alteration to an important historic property, based on speculation of what might have been had it been designed later, violates standards of good practice in conservation terms.
The proposals would seem to detract from the historic significance of this original pair of houses. The changes are all about making a single large house in the later style of Baillie Scott, rather than having regard for the integrity of the originals. As such, I believe that they cannot be supported.
Baillie Scott began his career on the Island and practiced there from 1892 to 1901. The buildings that he designed on the Island make a distinctive contribution to the cultural heritage of the Isle of Man.
The Friends of Onchan Heritage (received in connection with the application for Registered Building Consent, 14/00090/CON) - objection:
The people of Onchan are proud of their Baillie Scott inheritance - the pulpit and altar rails in St. Peter's Church, the Village Hall, the Groudle Hotel, the former Majestic Hotel, and Leafield and Braeside.
They are very concerned that the proposals will destroy Baillie Scott's interior of the Leafield and Braeside properties.
Also concern that the green-roofed garages will spoil the views of the houses from the roadside. They have, since their construction, gained the attention of public from far afield due to the unusual design of their porches and text carved above the entrance doors on both.
Owner/occupier of No. 1 Majestic Drive, Onchan - expresses the following concerns:
Adverse impact on neighbour amenity due to the new swimming pool.
The swimming pool will generate noise, especially the water pump.
The ground level will be raised several feet which will impact on privacy, particularly bearing in mind that there are no proposals for boundary screening.
Chlorine smell will cause upset to neighbours.
The proposals are contrary to the Strategic Plan, which seeks to protect the amenity of local people when considering development proposals.
Most of the neighbours are elderly and the proposal is causing them considerable distress.
The planned extensions would alter the look and character of the existing buildings, which are registered and which the Planning Authority has a duty to protect.
Will the proposal increase groundwater and airborne pollution? Surely the proposals will increase pollution levels? Should an expert be consulted on this?
Owner/occupier of Thalassa, King Edward Road, Onchan - objection:
The proposed swimming pool would run the entire length, and parallel to, their boundary hedge. Concerns about the effects of construction works on the hedge which will almost certainly eventually die.
The grassed covered roof on the swimming pool will invade their privacy. There will be no area within their rear garden which will not be overlooked.
Noise from the swimming pool's heating system and fumes from cleaning chemicals will adversely impact upon their amenity. Concerns about the impacts upon their health.
Possible structural implications for their garage and house due to the proximity of the building works to their property.
The land behind Braeside will be over developed.
They were led to believe that there should be a passage between the exterior of the building and the perimeter of the property. There should be a gap between the property and their wall on the boundary. Part of their boundary hedge was previously lost and should be replaced.
The new wall will be above the existing wall and will obscure the daylight and sun from their east facing kitchen patio window.
In view of the close proximity of the works to their property (about 0.5 metres from their garage roof and 3.5 metres from their kitchen window), the value of their property will be significant reduced.
It is a great shame that one of the few beautiful buildings on the Island is being decimated in this way. It must be possible for reversible alterations between the two dwellings to be made so that the original Baille-Scott houses are not destroyed.
Owner/occupier of Cliff Top, Majestic Close, Onchan (owner of No. 7 Majestic Drive) - objection:
The structure will be built within 1 metre of their boundary and at a height of approximately 3.6 metres over ground level. Cautious about the applicant's suggestion that this elevated area will be used only for maintenance.
A guard will be required to prevent falling, which will increase the overall height to approximately 4.8 metres. This will be overbearing, jeopardising the enjoyment of their garden whilst allowing unobstructed elevated views of the entire rear of their property and habitable rooms to the detriment of their privacy.
A mains sewer exists, running parallel alongside their boundary. This is not shown on the drawings. They are advised that any works within 3 metres of such a drain is not permitted. Concerns that the proposals could impact on this drain.
If the swimming pool requires emptying then will the capacity of the drain allow for this? Could local flooding result?
The Conservation Officer has responded to the concerns expressed by the Victorian Society, Diane Haigh Architect, Friends of Onchan Heritage and others as follows.
There has been strong criticism of the design approach from The Victorian Society. This criticism is often levelled at the mixture of the old and the new on the Island however, it
is interesting to note that the Heritage Authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have accepted this is an acceptable approach to the alteration and/or extension of historic buildings and have formalised this in guidance which is now available from them explaining how this might take place.
Historic Scotland issued 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment - Extensions' - A consultation Draft August 2009. In that document, they offer the following:
Additions to Historic Buildings
The history of use and ownership of a historic building is reflected in the cumulative changes made to it. They can themselves form an aspect of a building's special interest. New alterations or additions, which are of high design quality sympathetic to the character of the building, form part of this continuum. Most listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses.
Yet historic buildings vary in the extent to which they can accommodate change without loss of special interest. Some present the opportunity to promote design intervention that would not have been possible without the historic building as a creative spark. Others are sensitive even to slight alterations. This is especially so of buildings with important interiors - not just great houses, but also, for example, churches with historic pews or factories with surviving machinery. Then an extension rather than internal change may be a way forward to safeguard the special interest of the building.
Some buildings have interest as relatively little-altered examples of a humble building type. These are harder to sympathetically extend than those more substantial pieces of architecture."
That report highlights five aspects of contextual design and states that new work must acknowledge the old in every case, whether that work will be:
A restoration
A replication
A complimentary addition
A deferential contrast or
An assertive contrast.
It is considered, that the approach taken by the applicant's agents to these proposals, accords with that set out in that document. It is particularly pertinent as the two dwellings are not pristine examples of Baillie Scott's work, but are instead, properties that have been lived in and altered by their owners over a period of time.
The architects (being agents for the planning application) have responded to the comments of the Victorian Society as follows:
> "We thought it might be useful to take this opportunity to make a general comment on the correspondence that you had received regarding the application from the Isle of Man Victorian Society's Case Worker, Peter Kelly
> It is clear, and we must acknowledge, that Mr Kelly has a unique depth of detailed knowledge, from the local historian's point of view, on M H Baillie Scott
> Mr Kelly's letter raises a range of points, corrects issues of 'fact' where he sees it necessary and expresses a rather disappointing and negative view on our own research, design methodology and design proposals
A number of the points raised could be considered relevant to the application but in equal measure the amount of less-relevant information presented rather uses the breadth and depth of his knowledge to bewilder and distract from the issues
Mr Kelly's letter is an expression of his views on the proposals as a local historian; no matter how careful and considerate we may have been, we can appreciate that he may not concur with our professional position as chartered architects
We do, of course, recognise the importance of Baillie Scott's work on the Island
Having conducted some initial research we agreed an appropriate approach to the project with the applicant; we felt that, as architects, we could use our training and experience to make a considered and positive contribution to the project
As background to our design work we have carefully considered the condition of the building and those parts that have already been altered
Aspects of the project would involve an amount of conservation work and this is balanced by the new work to meet the applicant's requirements, i.e. to combine and extend the two houses into a single dwelling suitable for a modern family.
In considering such a scheme our view is that it is appropriate to have considered aspects and elements of Baillie Scott's later work (generally on larger homes) and the available literature as useful background information
This information and our analysis has been used as a guide for our design work and has been presented as part of the application
Whilst carefully considering this material, the intention cannot be to attempt to create a 'historically accurate' building through this process - Mr Kelly would be correct to point out that this is not possible
We cannot know how Baillie Scott would have approached this kind of conversion project (and neither, of course, can Mr Kelly)
We do know that he did undertake a similar task for his own house outside Bedford (which I have visited but is itself now much altered) and that he took an interest in adapting older buildings to develop their use
We do not claim to suggest what he may or may not have done either in altering existing buildings or designing a new building; rather, as architects, we have researched appropriate source material and then used our training, experience and ability as designers to formulate a strategy and to develop this into an appropriate proposal
Our approach is to use the information and analysis as a 'guiding hand' for our design work.
In summary, the application can be considered as having two components:
01 - the existing semi-detached properties being combined into a single large dwelling
02 - new elements of the building: extension of the property to provide an indoor swimming pool; replacement of the existing garages with a new garage
In 01 we have carefully considered the existing buildings, their original elements and areas where they have been altered and where original details have been removed; our design work within the existing building has been guided by our consideration of Baillie Scott's work on a number of later, larger houses as precedent for how we might plan the proposed building, both at a strategic level and in closer detail.
In 02 we have employed widely accepted strategies for extending existing buildings of historic significance (e.g. EH, IHBC, SPAB) i.e. the additions are clearly legible and take a sympathetic form to the setting and appearance of the main building: the pool extension is at a lower level than and is subordinate to the house, thereby preserving its external form and setting; the new garages enable the removal of the two existing garages (later additions) and by retaining views of the house from the entrances to the driveway, enhance the setting of the existing house.
We trust that, in this respect, the application will be considered in the same positive manner by the Committee as the recent approval of the proposal to extend Grenaby House: a proposal to extend a well established existing dwelling with a large and modern extension.
Assessment
Whether it is acceptable in principle in land-use planning terms to amalgamate Braeside and Leafield as a single dwelling with house keeper's accommodation
Class 4 of Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 states that it is permitted development to use a building consisting of two or more dwellings as a single dwelling. Therefore, having regard to this fall back, there are no reasonable planning grounds to withhold planning approval for the use of Braeside and Leafield as a single dwelling.
The house keeper's accommodation is at the eastern end of the building (currently Leafield) and is relatively small comprising a single bedroom, lounge area and kitchen. It would have a separate entrance off the end gable but would also be accessed through the main house. The accommodation would essentially be ancillary to the main house. A condition is recommended if the application is approved to ensure that the staff accommodation remains ancillary since its independent use would warrant further consideration as to the implications of this on the integrity of the Registered Building.
It is realised that there are important architectural and historic issues around the amalgamation of the two houses as one (and formation of the staff accommodation), particularly in relation to the internal alterations; however, these are pertinent to the application for Registered Building Consent which is being considered concurrently.
The effect of the proposals upon the historic and architectural qualities of the Registered Buildings, their setting, and the character and appearance of the area
The planning application is concerned with the effect of the external works upon the integrity of the Registered Buildings, their setting, as well as the general character and appearance of the area. The application for Registered Building Consent - which is being considered concurrently - is also concerned with the effect of the proposed internal alterations on Braeside and Leafield.
There are four main elements to the proposals:
Formation of the swimming pool at the rear;
Erection of the green-roofed garages at the front;
Minor external alterations to the houses and erection of detached shed; and
Removal of the existing garage.
The proposed swimming pool to the rear is considered to be an interesting addition, it is very modern and low lying and shows deference to the Arts & Crafts architecture of the main house rear elevation by utilising the fall of the land, sedum covered flat roof and render and glass to minimise its impact on the garden and grounds. The architectural treatment with its clean lines and modern detailing in the extensive use of glazing and planting to soften the top edge of the wall, offer a readily understood modern addition leaving the observer in little doubt as to the time in which it was conceived. It is considered that the design of the swimming pool is a deferential contrast 'where the new becomes a self-effacing backdrop against the old. Even if it is large, it seeks not to be assertive. It might be achieved in glass, for example.' In doing so, the extension is anchored to the existing both literally and figuratively and is considered acceptable in doing so.
The two existing single garages are later additions and of limited architectural and/or historic interest and cannot be considered to add to the character of the Registered Building. Proposed, is their demolition and replacement with garaging set in-front of the properties, but forming a part of the sloping garden between the properties and King Edward Road. The garaging will be finished externally in vertical boarding. This will continue across the whole frontage of the garaging to provide a singular finish. This is a contemporary approach that seeks to minimise the impact of the garaging but at the same time, to reduce the impact of the motor car on the property, something Baillie Scott would not have had to contend with. It is true to say that the new garage area will have some impact on views of the front façade of the buildings, but it is not considered that this would be significant and the benefits of this approach are considered to outweigh any negative impacts.
Elsewhere, the relatively minor alteration to the service areas on either gable of the houses is considered appropriate and an improvement, and has been supported by Manx National Heritage. It is important that the detailing of materials and finishes is appropriately controlled and this can be achieved by means of a planning condition.
It is vitally important that proper consideration is given to the alteration and extension of historic buildings. This report indicates that Heritage Authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have accepted that alteration and extension to the historic built environment can be undertaken in differing ways and that each has its merits. In this application, the architects have carried out internal works to unify the two properties in a manner which draws on the works of Baillie Scott.
In carrying out any intervention in existing buildings, Baillie Scott made them in a positive manner, with the confidence to do so. The architects have similarly approached the interventions with confidence, overlaying their work on Baillie Scott's, in a manner which responds to and acknowledges the work of the former. Externally, as seen by the passer-by, the clearance of the modern garages and the creation of the new garaging both opens the views of the existing houses and plays down the impact of the car, a mode of transport that was not as prolific when these houses were originally designed.
Opinions will differ on what is the right and wrong way to approach such a scheme, dependent on point of view and the 'leaning' of a given author. Those whose interest lies in the preservation of such buildings at all costs, deny the opportunity for the next stage of development to be expressed and therefore to become part of the building's story for future generations to understand and enjoy. There is an inherent danger in this approach that is that a building stagnates at a relatively arbitrary point in time. A point decided upon in deference to history. Baillie Scott himself is responsible for alteration and extension of buildings on which he has left his mark as much as the architect/builder before him.
The Houses and Gardens of M. H. Baillie Scott (Ian MacDonald-Smith):
Ref. Home Close, Sibford Ferris, Banbury, Oxfordshire, 1910, p.142
'Proposed modifications (drawn by Diane Haigh, a published expert on the architect, who renovated 48 Storey's Way to exacting standards that Baillie Scott would have appreciated1) allow a much improved flow to the house and it is a shame that at the time of printing2 the modifications have not been executed. Local planners, for whom Baillie-Scott had little time, have caused this house to be kept in a state of disrepair by refusing to allow the modifications. With modern living, every Baillie-Scott kitchen and service area has been altered, and undoubtedly the architect would have designed differently had he been working today. It is thanks to Baillie-Scott's understanding and use of local materials and mastery of high-quality craftsmanship that Home Close will shine again once bureaucracy has been reasoned with.'
And Blackwell of course.
2010
The works as set out in this report are not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the character of the Registered Buildings or their setting. Moreover, it is considered that the character and appearance of the area would be preserved. The proposals are considered to comply with the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which are Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32; and 34 and Policies RB/3 and RB/5 and from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man).
The effect of the proposals on the residential amenities of neighbouring residents
The main issue in terms of the likely effect of the proposals on the amenity of neighbouring residents is the impact of the proposed swimming pool. This would be located in the rear garden alongside the west boundary of the site. In this regard it would abut Thalassa, No. 56 King Edward Road and No. 1 Majestic Drive to the west, as well as No. 7 Majestic Drive to the immediate south.
The swimming pool would be partially sunken into the ground and garden and it would have a flat and "green" sedum roof to minimise its impact on the garden and setting of the Registered Buildings. This would create a green roof terrace and the neighbours have concerns that this would lead to overlooking if it used as amenity space.
The architects make the point that the roof of the swimming pool is not intended for general use. Although it would have a "green" roof, this will be planted with sedum, not grass, which cannot be walked on apart from access for periodic maintenance. As such, the architects confirm that the roof does not have provision for a perimeter balustrade or other general protection from falling or screening. Provision for a man-safe or similar fall-protection system will be made in respect of the maintenance of the access (if deemed necessary).
It should be noted that the green roof area is off set from the boundary hedge with the neighbour by around 2.7 metres - the area of roof between the sedum area and boundary is glazed and the architects confirm that it would not be possible to walk on the glazing. This means that even during periodic maintenance of the roof, personnel would not be able to walk on the roof right up to the shared boundary with the neighbour.
Provided that the swimming pool has a sedum roof at all times, and that is does not have balustrades, it is considered that there is sufficient assurance that the roof will not be
used as a general outdoor amenity space. The relative height of the adjacent boundary hedge would mean that there would otherwise be direct and harmful overlooking into the Thalassa and No. 1 Majestic Drive next to the site. It is extremely important that this is avoided. A planning condition is recommended to ensure the implementation of the sedum roof without balustrades.
The removal of the existing single garages at the front, the other minor alterations and creation of the green roofed garaging would unlikely adversely affect the amenity of adjacent neighbours given their position within the site.
Other issues raised during the consultation period
Good practice in terms of the design, functioning and management of the swimming pool should ensure that there are no toxic or other adverse environmental impacts on the adjacent residents.
The devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration.
The effect of the works on the structural condition of the adjacent property, as well as the neighbour's boundary hedge, is a civil issue and not a consideration for this planning application.
The Manx Utility Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposals from a drainage point of view including the proximity of the building works to the public sewer.
Recommendation
For the reasons set out above, this application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
Party Status
The following parties should be afforded interested person status:
The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Highway Service is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
Owner/occupier of No. 1 Majestic Drive, Onchan - immediate neighbour Owner/occupier of Thalassa, King Edward Road, Onchan - immediate neighbour Owner/occupier of Cliff Top, Majestic Close, Onchan - owner of No. 7 Majestic Drive, which is an immediate neighbour.
The following parties should NOT be afforded interested person status:
~~Isle of Man Victorian Society - not a direct neighbour~~ Diane Haigh Architect - not a direct neighbour The Friends of Onchan Heritage - not a direct neighbour
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 16.06.2014
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
C 1.
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2.
The staff accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the new dwelling hereby approved as identified on the approved plans and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling unit.
Reason: The Planning Authority would wish to further consider the effect of the staff accommodation being separate accommodation on the integrity of the Registered Building and its setting.
C 3.
No development shall commence until details of the sedum roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The swimming pool shall not be occupied until such time as the sedum roof has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The sedum roof on the swimming pool shall thereafter be retained at all times in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To prevent the roof of the swimming pool being used as a general outdoor amenity area to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy experienced by neighbouring residents.
C 4.
Notwithstanding the provisions Class 16 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fencing, walls or means of enclosure shall be erected on or around the roof of the swimming pool.
Reason: To prevent the roof of the swimming pool being used as a general outdoor amenity area to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy experienced by neighbouring residents.
C 5. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the integrity of the Registered Building and its setting.
C 6. The garaging hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor car(s) and shall be retained available for such use.
Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking.
This approval relates to Drawing Numbers 093.02; 093.04 to 093.18 (inclusive); 093.20 to 093.037 (inclusive); and 093.39 to 093.045 (inclusive) received on 24 January 2014; Drawing Numbers 093.03A and 093.19A received on 30 May 2014; and Drawing Numbers 093.38A and 14647-01 received on 11 June 2014.
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.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
