Loading document...
Ms E J Callow Secretary to the Planning Committee Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF
Dear Ms Callow
From a study of the main drawing submitted (ref C9-03-A), the plans would appear to be incorrect, or at best misleading: the Existing and Proposed Sectional Elevations appear to be facing in opposite directions. Presumably, if the 'Proposed Sectional Elevation' and the 'Plan on New Slab' are consistent with each other (and the service duct is indeed on the west side of the road), the scheme involves completely altering the side of the bridge which faces Santon railway station. The effect of this would be to introduce a modern engineered design which overhangs the existing arch by up to two metres, using modern materials.
We note that the station building is protected (Registered Building No 278), and that the registration documentation makes a point of referring to, and recording photographically, the station building's visual setting. We further note that the registration documentation concludes with the remark, "With a little effort this site could be made into a timeless example of an IMR station, dating little from 1875".
In this context we therefore cannot support the wholesale alteration of the east side of the bridge, as this unnecessarily introduces both modern materials and modern design to an historical setting, whilst at the same time requiring the loss of traditionally-built historical masonry. We would rather prefer to see the retention of the parapet and its characteristic Manx stonework (complete with distinctive 'soldier' parapet) on the east side, where the bridge is visible from the station and viewed when walking to and from the station via the access road.
Additionally, we are distinctly underwhelmed by the proposed use of a stone veneer which cannot look anything other than artificial, particularly when juxtaposed next to surviving traditionally-laid stonework. Indeed, we also note that it is not explicitly clear from the drawings whether this veneer would be applied to all sides of the parapets, and if omitted from the elevation facing the station would add to the visual intrusion.
We also note that a 2.64 \mathrm{~m} / 9^{\prime} 8^{\prime \prime} wide pedestrian pavement, in a rural context such as this, appears wildly excessive, given the level of use it is realistically likely to experience; furthermore, the 1.5 m high parapet will deny anyone shorter than 1.65 \mathrm{~m} / 5^{\prime} 5^{\prime \prime} a practicable view of activity on the railway below.
We trust that these points will be considered by the Planning Committee when taking its decision.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Johnson BA MSc FSA Inspector of Ancient Monuments cc. Mr R. Brazier (DEFA) Mr T. Sinden (DEFA)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
