Loading document...
The applications were made following consultations with the Planning Officer, the Conservation Officer and with Manx National Heritage. The scheme was discussed with Planning and Conservation on a number of occasions in order to verify the general approach to design and to further explain the details of the scheme as the process developed.
The developed scheme was presented to representatives of Manx National Heritage as part of the consultation process. Their letter in response to the submitted application represents a measured response to the proposals.
Concerns of the Planning Officer regarding overlooking the neighbouring property were addressed through additional drawings following consultation and a site visit to clarify the proposals in this regard. Further drawings were submitted during the application period to ensure that the proposals were clear.
Additional photographs were supplied to the Conservation Officer during the application period to assist in explaining the current condition of the building, in particular the areas where the original features and fabric of the buildings have been removed, replaced or otherwise compromised.
A desktop review of the proposed strategy, including schematic and layout plans of the existing buildings; analytical drawings of the front and rear elevations; sketch plans and analytical plans of a number of other later/ larger Baillie Scott designed properties; draft schematic and layout plans of preliminary proposal; draft plans indicating existing condition of building.
The research + design methodology and preliminary details of the scheme were welcomed. Suggestions were made regarding clarification and further detail regarding some elements of the existing buildings and their condition and in relation to some aspects of the design proposals.
Further detail presented including survey and condition information regarding the chimney flues in the central stack and the feasibility of re-routing the two aground floor flues in relation to the formation of the main bedroom; updated ground and first floor layout plans; detailed sectional analysis of the kitchen/ former yard area of Braeside (as existing and as proposed); front and rear elevations as proposed; preliminary proposals for the new garages; long sections through the building, as existing and the preliminary proposal; cross sections through new hall, as existing and as proposed.
This meeting confirmed to us that the approach, the scheme and the background justification were acceptable; suggestion to review proposals with planning officer; suggestion to review proposals with Manx National Heritage; discussion of relevant planning policy; discussion of importance of submitting the background information with the applications; garage proposals well received, ie removing the existing, later additions, to restore the setting of the building and replace with a new garage in the area of the existing front garden; discussion of structural engineer's method statement regarding amendments to the party wall.
A review of the proposals and issues on site: the planning officer was generally supportive of this 'interesting' scheme. The proposals were thought to be generally acceptable in planning terms, ie combining the two houses into a single larger dwelling; demolishing the
existing garages and replacing them with a new structure in the location of the current front garden; extending the property at the lower level in the rear garden and the formation of an enclosed swimming pool.
Concern was raised that if the roof of the swimming pool extension was to be generally accessible this would likely lead to a condition where the neighbouring gardens and properties could be overlooked. Reassurance was made that this would not be the case and that the scheme would be developed on that basis.
6.04 Consultation • Manx National Heritage • Edmund Southworth (Director) Andrew Johnson (Curator - field archaeology • Inspector of Ancient Monuments) 28 August 2013
A full presentation was made of the proposals, justification, precedent, concepts and design proposals to date. See Appendix 03 for email confirmation of the details of the meeting and for Manx National Heritage's response to the planning application.
6.05 Consultation • Planning Officer • Edward Baker • 19 September 2013
A review of the proposals specifically in relation to the prevention of possibility of overlooking from the swimming pool roof to the neighbouring properties.
6.06 Planning Committee Meeting • 23 June 2014
The applications were referred to the Planning Committee in view of the level and nature of public interest in the application.
In addition to the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer having presented their reports and their recommendations to APPROVE the applications, Martyn Thomas of horncastle:thomas, the applicant's agent, made a verbal representation within the permitted 3 minutes in support of the application - see Appendix 04 for written transcript.
No representations were made against the applications.
The members of the Planning Committee responded as follows:
Mr Cottier expressed general support for the application;
Mr Kermode expressed a concern regarding the possibility that the proposed garage would obstruct the view of the property from the road, but overall stated that he was 'happy' with the application;
Mr Ronan (Chair of the Committee) found the application 'fascinating' was clearly supportive;
Mr Evans was 'tending to approve' but expressed concern regarding criticism raised in Inspector's report on a previous application that the Committee had made a decision on an application for another Baillie Scott house, the Red House, without making a site visit - he, therefore, moved that the committee defer the decision pending a site visit;
Mr Gilbey stated that he did not agree with either officer's recommendation to approve the application and made it clear that he would not support any such application under any circumstance - he expressed his disappointment that Peter Kelly had not attended the meeting to make a verbal representation against the application;
Mr Young stated that the property should be viewed as a family home and not as a 'museum piece' and was clear that he thought this a 'fantastic project'.
Mr Kermode seconded the proposal that the decision be deferred to a site visit.
6.07 Planning Committee Site Visit • 01 July 2014 The site visit was attended by Mr Ronan MHK (Chair), Mr Evans, Mr Gilbey, Mr Young and Mr Cottier. Mr Kermode did not attend the site visit.
Also in attendance were Edward Baker (Planning Officer), Stephen Moore (Conservation Officer), Martyn Thomas (horncastle:thomas - applicant's agent)
6.08 Planning Committee Meeting • 09 July 2014
In the intervening period, Mr Ronan MHK was promoted to a ministerial position, thereby making him ineligible to remain in his role as Chairman of the Planning Committee.
Mr Evans took the role of Chair for the meeting; all of the other members of the committee were present.
The Planning Officer, Edward Baker, was not present at the meeting. The Conservation Officer, Stephen Moore, spoke in his absence.
He stated that, in his view, the application proposals presented a realistic approach and that buildings of this type could accommodate such alterations; that these are note 'museum-pieces' and that the buildings had altered over time as part and parcel of people having lived there. The local context differs from the adjacent islands in the sense that a 'National Trust' approach could not be sustained. He felt that the justification offered in the case of the new garages could be sustained in respect of reducing the effect on the properties, not only by the later added garages but also from the visual impact of having to park a number of cars in front of the properties. He stated that the general approach was in line with that suggested by SPAB.
Although having not appeared at the previous meeting, Peter Kelly of the Victorian Society took the opportunity to deliver a verbal representation against the applications.
Martyn Thomas of horncastle:thomas again made a verbal representation within the permitted 3 minutes in support of the application - see Appendix 04 for transcript
The members of the Planning Committee responded as follows:
Mr Gilbey reiterated his position that he severely opposed the proposals, disagreed with the recommendations to approve them and agreed with Mr Kelly's view that they should be refused. He noted that the properties were registered in 1989 and it was his view that they should be entirely preserved in their condition at the time of registration. He felt that the proposals were utterly unacceptable and that they should not be given registered building consent. If consent were to be given his view was that they should be removed from the register.
Mr Moore strongly disagreed with both suggestions, noting that buildings designed by C R Mackintosh had been successfully extended and added to. He suggested that the importance of Baillie Scott's work should be recognised but that it is not correct that no alterations should be allowed to the buildings. He noted that English Heritage guidance was 'not afraid' to allow positive changes. A situation where no changes could be made caused Mr Moore 'grave concern', setting up museum pieces.
Mr Gilbey noted that his family had owned listed buildings in the UK and they would not dream of changing them.
Mr Young commented that the site visit had been very important. He was comfortable that the pool extension would not have significant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and that the new garages, when viewed over the hedge at the boundary of the property, would not significantly alter the public view. His view was that he had been quite
shocked by the changes that had been made to the buildings, particularly in respect of the bathrooms and said that they should be kept as a living dwelling rather than a museum-piece.
Mr Cottier offered two points as preamble to his comments: firstly his disappointment that the Proposals for the Red House had been approved and that the committee's preservationist view had not worked on that occasion. Secondly, he thanked Mr Kelly for making a representation against the proposals but suggested that this would have been more effective if the proposals had been specifically addressed rather than the apparent 'general CV' he had presented.
Mr Cottier said that the site visit had been excellent and had prompted a good discussion to complement that at the previous meeting. In respect of the pool he concurred with Mr Young. His reservation related to the new garages and their proximity to the main house. His view was that the houses themselves would not appear to be materially changed and that the demolition of the existing garages would represent an improvement. As regards the condition of the interior, he again concurred with Mr Young in the view that the later 'improvements' were poor. He felt that the applicant and architect were doing the best that they could to preserve and to replicate and that the application showed evidence of thought, effort and a degree of sensitivity: the applicant and architect are to be commended.
Mr Kermode found that he agreed with Mr Kelly that the applications should be refused. This was a disappointing change of heart from the previous meeting and we feel it necessary to re-state that Mr Kermode had been unable to attend the site visit the previous week. The response of the other attendees had been so positive that it is our view that the support shown for the applications at the previous meeting could have been maintained if he had been able to attend the site visit.
Mr Evans (Acting Chair), Mr Young and Mr Cottier voted to approve the application. Mr Gilbey and Mr Kermode voted against approving the application. The application was thereby approved The committee voted to grant the Isle of Man Victorian Society party status to the application.
7.00 APPEAL AGAINST REGISTERED BUILDING APPROVAL
An appeal has been raised against the approval of the Registered Building Consent 14/00090/CON by the Isle of Man Victorian Society on the basis that they are: "Dissatisfied with the Registered Building application decision by the Planning Committee. Appeal is against that decision only."
Peter Kelly, the Isle of Man Victorian Society's Caseworker, wrote a lengthy letter of objection to the proposals at the application stage. We wrote a general response at the time, included with the letter of objection in Appendix 05.
We also include, for consideration at the appeal, a more complete point by point response to the many issues raised by Mr Kelly. See Appendix 06.
It is interesting to note a number of errors in a letter so very critical of our approach to the context and design of this project. In general, the content and tone of the letter are disappointing. We can understand his views but his over-reliance on the reproduction of historic information muddies his very dismissive arguments.
7.01 Letter of objection to applications from the Isle of Man Victorian Society
7.02 Letter of objection to applications from Diane Haigh
It is legitimate and understandable that the Isle of Man Victorian Society would have concerns regarding any application put before them concerning the proposed extension or alteration to any Registered Building.
We also appreciate the correct importance that they place on the work of Baillie Scott, particularly that on the Isle of Man.
However, in spite of their concerns, we have developed the proposals for the application scheme in a careful and sensitive way, consulting with the relevant local professionals and relevant bodies in the process, both in regard to the methodologies adopted, the strategic planning issues and the particular details of the scheme.
Both the Planning Officer's report and the Conservation Officer's report recommended approval of the scheme and the planning Committee voted to accept those recommendations. It must be re-stated that the Planning Committee site visit became a crucial factor in their decision making process.
A site visit must be made in order to properly understand the property and proposals. The proposals must be viewed and understood in three dimensions and considered in-situ. They must also be considered from the perspective of the property as a home that must be conserved and not as a fixed artefact to be preserved.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown