Loading document...
Proposed Renovation and Extension of Cottage Conversion of Barn to Living Accommodation and Erection of Link to Create Single Dwelling
at
Ballacannell, Earystane, Colby
Statement of Proposals Prior to Planning Application
7th February 2005
Document/drawings considered informally by PC February 2005 (see letter of 23/2/5)
On 27th November 2002 the Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and the Environment gave notice that approval in principle be granted for the renovation of a cottage, conversion of a barn and erection of link building to create a single dwelling at Ballacannell, Earystane, Colby. This approval was granted in respect to planning application 01/02533/A. Further, the approval was granted subject to conditions set out in paragraph 22 of the report of an inquiry against Appeal Number AP1959.
These conditions were as follows:
i. that the approval be valid for a period of 2 years until such time as reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) be approved by the Planning Authority subject to a single application (subsequently extended to September 2005); ii. the approval to relate only to the renovation and reuse of the existing fabric together with the construction of a link between the buildings and an extension to the existing house; iii. the renovation of the house to be completed prior to work on any link building or alterations to the barn; iv. definition of the domestic boundaries of the site; v. application to include details of paving, fencing and other external works, together with trees on site and any to be felled; vi. proposals to erect outbuildings such as shed etc, to form part of a separate application.
In recommending that approval in principle be granted the Inspector concluded that "on balance an interesting conservation scheme can result from this proposal ...and that this is a preferable outcome to the almost inevitable alternative of the buildings
falling in to utter decay and becoming an eyesore and a danger to people enjoying the local footpath network.”¹
The Inspector also gave the opinion that “the barn is an interesting example of a traditional Manx agricultural building from a past era which adds to the rural scene. Had the house been in a better state of repair I would have recommended unhesitatingly that the scheme be permitted”² “In fact the shell of the house remains substantially complete, and the structural engineers report indicates that it is in better condition than might be thought by an uninformed observer”³. “I see merit in a scheme which would retain the house and barn as an example of traditional buildings in a primitive Manx farmstead”⁴.
The proposal indicates a two-storey link constructed between the existing barn and house. The link is necessary to create useable living accommodation. Indeed the Inspector states “This appears to me to be satisfactory in principle because each of the dwellings in isolation would be likely to provide very poor accommodation as individual dwellings. Nor...would they form very satisfactory holiday accommodation”⁵.
In considering the link the Inspector concludes, “this could be erected in such a way that the original character of the farmhouse and barn would remain apparent”. The Inspector, by way of example, suggests constructing the link in a light and transparent framework in contrast to the massive stone walls of the house”⁶.
The Applicant is fully in agreement with the Inspectors conclusions. The Applicant wishes to see the sympathetic conservation and reinstatement of the buildings. This is not only because of their former habitation and use by his family’s predecessors and the historical and sentimental importance that this brings about, but also that their
¹ Appeal No. AP1959 para 24 ² Ibid. para 18 ³ Ibid. para 19 ⁴ Ibid. para 20 ⁵ Ibid. para 21 ⁶ Ibid para 22
3
conservation is far preferable to the further decay of the buildings, their ultimate loss to the heritage of the Island, and possible danger to others while in a ruinous state.
As mentioned above the Applicant proposes the construction of a two-storey link between the existing buildings. This is necessary to create useable living accommodation, as without it each building would provide very poor accommodation as individual dwellings; a point on which the Inspector concurred⁷.
In constructing the link the Applicant proposes a light painted rendered block-work framework which would be in contrast to the massive stone walls of the house and barn. The proposed link is modest in dimension and incorporates glazed windows and doorways architecturally sympathetic to those in the barn and house. The roofline of the link is below that of the barn and house and the façades are set back behind those of the existing buildings. Indeed, the construction, layout, and external finish of the proposed link are such that the original character of the barn and house remain apparent, a status that the Applicant is keen to emphasise. By so doing the Applicant provides the transparency suggested by the Inspector⁸ in that the existing house and barn are easy to perceive and detect.
Three applications have been made to the Planning Department since the granting of outline planning approval, the last being Application No. 03/01330/B. As part of these applications the Applicant has removed the proposal for a glazed sun porch. The rear extension to the house has also been greatly reduced in dimension to meet the concerns of the Planning Department. The pathways, access to the public, planting and general landscaping have also been further enhanced.
Despite this the Applicant is nevertheless aware that there are those who have an interest in the application who would favour a fully glazed structure to form the link between the two existing buildings and moreover some who have suggested a single story fully glazed link. This may have arisen from the Inspector’s suggestion of a
⁷ Ibid. para 20 ⁸ Ibid. para 21
4
"light" and "transparent" link. It is perhaps for this reason that recent applications have been refused.
The Applicant wishes to stress most emphatically that at no time did the Inspector use the terms "clear", "glass" or "single storey". Indeed in the Applicant's opinion the linking of the buildings in such a way would be wholly unusual and would significantly detract from their character. Moreover the link could be perceived as a proprietary glasshouse or conservatory, a perception the Applicant wishes to avoid. In his own investigations the Applicant has been unable to identify any similar way of linking buildings of historical merit. He can however find examples of where a solid structure has been used to link buildings, examples of which are enclosed at Appendix 1 for further information.
The Inspector did use the words "Transparent" and "Light"⁹. The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines transparent as "easy to perceive or detect" or alternatively "allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be clearly seen". Similarly "Light" is defined as "an area of something that is brighter or paler than its surroundings".
In the Applicant's opinion it can only be the former definition of transparent to which the Inspector refers. By constructing a clear glass structure the Applicant would be in clear view of walkers and other passers by and would thereby suffer an invasion of his privacy. This would necessitate the provision of curtaining, screening, and/or blinds which in themselves would negate the transparency of the glass structure and would significantly detract from the existing buildings either side.
Similarly at no point did the Inspector refer to a single storey link. Indeed he has acknowledged that the link as depicted on the drawings was necessary if buildings were to provide useful living accommodation¹⁰. A single story link would require two further staircases to be constructed within the confines of the existing buildings, which in the Applicant's opinion would make them spatially unusable.
⁹ Ibid. para 21 ¹⁰ Ibid. para 20
The Applicant appends to this paper coloured drawings which illustrate his proposals for the sympathetic conservation and safeguarding of the buildings. In providing these for the committees prior consideration and comment he would reiterate as follows:
i. His desire to provide an interesting conservation scheme which would safeguard the buildings for the future an outcome that this is a preferable to the almost inevitable alternative of the buildings falling in to utter decay and becoming an eyesore and a danger to people enjoying the local footpath network;
ii. The provision of a light painted rendered two storey link which would be in contrast to the massive stone walls of the house and barn such that the original character of the barn and house remain clearly apparent;
iii. His strong objection to a clear glass link between the building which in his opinion is contrary to the intentions of the Inspector and which would significantly detract from the original character of the barn and house;
iv. The reduction in the dimensions of the extension to the rear of the property in accordance with the Planning Departments previous concerns;
v. The removal of the glazed sun room from the application; vi. The provision of safe and hard pathways through the site for the benefit of walkers and other passers by; vii. The continued upkeep and sympathetic management of landscaping and planting.
{{image:381450}} {{image:381451}} {{image:381452}}
| Application No: 050375 | Page of | |
| Views Expressed - Name | Invite | Inform |
| Applicant Department of Transport Highways Arbory Parish Commissioners S P R C E Wate |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown