**Document:** APL Statement **Application:** 20/00897/CON — Registered Building consent for alterations to existing internal doors Registered Building Nos. 185 **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2020-10-09 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/31278-malew-king-williams-college-doors/documents/1053740 --- # APL Statement ## King William's College ![A photograph showing shelves filled with laboratory glassware, including conical flasks, with a planning department received stamp visible on the right.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233277.jpg) ### Science Department Refurbishment #### Registered Building - Internal Doors 6812 Revision (01) August 2020 **WILSON MASON** *Architecture and Interior Design* ## 1.0 | Door Replacement The proposals for King Williams College have been developed through careful consultation with the school's Estates team and Science department. The proposal looks to address the shortcomings of the existing Science department whilst sensitively addressing the historic built fabric of the school. Through a series of contemporary interventions, the school's lab and support spaces are being improved to provide teaching accommodation suited to current best practices. As part of these works, the fire performance of the building is being improved to provide adequate separation between classrooms and escape routes. This report therefore relates to the doors that exist within the school and the solutions that will improve their performance in the event of fire. The Science department was constructed over three distinct phases: 1863, 1902, and 1926. While all are included within the building's registration, it is evident that the 1863 portion was refurbished in the 1950s and as a result has none original doors. Within the registered building consent (PA 20/00079/GB), these modern doors are being replaced with simple, contemporary fire rated doors—this includes rooms G142, G134, G125, G124, F95, F86, F87, and F84. The majority of 'older' doors within the department are therefore found in the 1902 and 1926 sections of the building. It can therefore be assumed that the 'older' doors are from these periods. The document seeks to find a suitable route forward for ensuring adequate fire protection of the existing structure while being considerate of the historic nature of the building. ![A colored architectural floor plan showing internal room layouts, walls, and structural elements.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233279.jpg) View of the contemporary classrooms as proposed ![A colored architectural floor plan showing the layout of a building with distinct sections highlighted in blue, green, and red.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233280.jpg) Ground Floor ![A colored architectural floor plan showing room layouts and different flooring or zone types with hatching patterns.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233281.jpg) Mezzanine - Between First and Second Floor ![A colored architectural floor plan showing the internal layout of a building, with specific areas highlighted in red, blue, and green.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233282.jpg) First Floor Second Floor Roof Construction period of the school building as defined within the registered building documentation ## 1.0 | Door Replacement | Existing Doors - Issues ![Annotated photograph of a dark wooden internal door with glass panels and brass hardware, showing details relevant to building consent.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233284.jpg) ![A close-up photograph of a dark, polished wooden panelled door featuring a letterbox with ventilation holes and a door handle.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233285.jpg) ![A close-up photograph showing a dark wooden internal door frame and a white vertical pipe running along the adjacent wall.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233286.jpg) ![A close-up photograph showing the bottom of a dark wooden door meeting a wooden floor, documenting the existing interior condition.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233287.jpg) ![A photograph showing an interior view of a dark wooden door frame and archway with pale yellow walls, likely documenting existing conditions for building consent.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233288.jpg) ![A close-up photograph of a dark wooden door with a glazed upper panel and brass handle, situated between white skirting boards.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233289.jpg) An existing door within the King Williams College science department - The achitrave has been outdamaged for the installation of electrical items and the closure system. - The door itself no longer provides adequate fire protection. Smoke / intumescent seals are required, additional material is needed where the door is damaged and a modern coating to provide fire resistance, this coating is not adequate for the school environment. - Wire glazing is not original (screw heads are evident where the beading has been instated). - None original ironmongery is installed on the door (no longer suitable for fire regulations). - The doors do not comply with the accessible requirements of the school. - Flywood over boarding has been installed around the lock assembly - assumed to conceal further damage. - The door has been damaged and does not fit the opening fully. This would require extensive repair. Additional examples of doors not suitable for their purpose ## 1.0 | Door Replacement | Possible Options ### Option 1 ### Retain and improve the existing doors. The following works are anticipated: - The door leaf panels will need to be over boarded with a tested fire proof material. - Ironmongery replaced with a modern system. This includes door handles, locks, hinges and closure mechanisms. - Timber architraves and surrounds would be removed from their positions and sealed with modern intumescent materials. - The doors will require the addition/replacement of timber to infill areas of missing material. - The doors will likely require inlaying with intumescent / smoke sealing strips. - Glass openings will need to be removed and replaced with modern fire rated glazing, this will need to be resealed into position with hockey stick beads proud of the door surface. - The doors may require coating with fireproof paint. Pros Original Doors - The original doors can be retained in position. Genuine Restoration - The works described would restore the original doors. Suitability - As restored doors, they will sit well within the school building. Future Works - The doors would clearly identify themselves as original fabric should future works be required. Re Use - The existing doors themselves will be re used. ### Cons Building Regulations - The doors require extensive works (as above) to make them fire compliant, although, this may not be achievable in some instances. This work would change their character and would result in them being substantially different than their current appearance. Durable - Given their age, the doors will not be as durable as newer doors. Ongoing Maintenance - An intumescent paint treatment would require ongoing maintenance and regular checking to ensure the treatment has not been damaged or compromised. Consistency - New doors installed elsewhere in the department will not match with these doors. Ironmongery - The existing door ironmongery is not suitable for the schools requirements. ### Option 2 Remove the 'older' doors and replace with new doors that appear historic. The aim to introduce doors which are historic in appearance would require a detailed and developed fire door design process. The doors would be new but would have details that make them appear like they are from 1900. The aim would be for the door architraves, trims and panelling to match with the existing doors so that they have the same 'feel'. ### Pros Original Doors - The door may have some historical appearance (but not that of the existing - see below). Re Use - The existing doors (to be removed) can be retained and used in areas where their fire performance and accessibility are not of concern. Building Regulations - Doors will meet with all building regulations (fire and accessible requirements) as they are new. Durable - As new doors, they can be constructed to be durable and hardenaring in the school environment. Ongoing Maintenance - The door should require little ongoing maintenance. ### Cons Genuine Restoration - The doors may appear as a pastiche of their current condition. Suitability - The doors will be different to the existing and may not look historically accurate (compliant vision panels, etc). Future Works - The doors may appear as original and so their historic precedence may be questioned should future works be required. Consistency - New doors installed elsewhere in the department will not match with these doors. Ironmongery - The door ironmongery may need to match with the existing and therefore won't comply with current building regulations. ### Option 3 Remove the 'older' doors and introduce simple replacement doors to the project. The existing doors could be removed and a new simple replacement door set introduced. This would mitigate any issues with building control acceptability as the doors would be designed to suit current regulations. The appearance of the doors would be simple with a grey laminate front, clear glazed vision panel (where required), hardwood timber edgings and plain stainless steel ironmongery. ### Pros Suitability - The appearance of the doors is designed to be simplistic and none distracting so that they aren't a detriment to the registered building they sit within. Future Works - The doors would clearly identify themselves as new fabric and wouldn't be questioned as originals if future renovation works were required (they can be removed if needed). Re Use - The existing doors (to be removed) can be retained and used in areas where their fire performance and accessibility are not of concern. Building Regulations - Doors will meet with all building regulations (fire and accessible requirements) as they are new. Durable - The laminate panels will be durable and should prevent repeated maintenance. Ongoing Maintenance - The door should require little ongoing maintenance. Consistency - Other new doors installed within the department will match with these doors (refer to registered building consent PA 20/00079/GB) this will give continuity across the department. Ironmongery - The door ironmongery (locks, handles, push plates, etc) would be better suited to the installation location. For example, prep rooms require different door locks than classrooms. ### Cons Original Doors - The doors aren't original. Genuine Restoration - The doors would be new and are not a restored version of the existing. ### Preference As can be seen in the proposals evaluation, there are benefits to replacing the doors with new construction. Our preference would therefore be to replace the existing doors and introduce a simple replacement door that doesn't detract from the registered building. ### Suitability in a Registered Building We have undertaken the detailed restoration of other listed education buildings and have introduced new doors into historic openings. This approach was accepted on the basis that where we could we would retain the doors in areas where their fire performance and accessibility are not of concern. In this instance, for King Williams College, we would prepare to do the same and would also note that any removed doors will be handed back to the school for use elsewhere in the school buildings (where their fire performance and accessibility are not of concern). Refer to photos of the Coupland Building and Lancaster Royal Grammar School doors further within this document. ### Conclusion Whilst the preference is for the doors to be changed from their current state, these works will improve the condition of the building by allowing for improved and compliant fire separation and performance. As the areas affected were constructed mostly in 1902/1926, it is believed that this work will have little impact on the character of the heritage asset as a whole and should be supported in order to improve the condition and operation of the building. ## 2.0 | Existing Doors ![Architectural ground floor plan of a science department showing furniture layout and red annotations marking proposed internal door alterations.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233290.jpg) **Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Science Department** **1:100 @ A1** **Ground Floor Plan - Affected doors** ![This image displays a proposed first-floor architectural plan for a Science Department, featuring red annotations detailing internal door and wall alterations. The drawing highlights specific modifications such as the...](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233293.jpg) ![A snippet of an architectural drawing showing a legend key and text instructions regarding proposed works and existing drawings.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233294.jpg) **Proposed First Floor Plan - Science Department** **1:100 @ A1** **First Floor Plan - Affected doors** DOOR TYPE A Single set through the door with water, sand and pail ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221156.jpg) DOOR TYPE B Single set through the door ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221157.jpg) DOOR TYPE C Single set through the door with water, sand and pail, all together ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221158.jpg) DOOR TYPE D Single set through the door with water, sand and pail, all together ![photograph from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221159.jpg) DOOR TYPE E Single set through the door with water, sand and pail ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221160.jpg) DOOR TYPE F Single set through the door ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221162.jpg) DOOR TYPE G Single set through the door ![drawing from page 7](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221163.jpg) DOOR TYPE H Single set through the door with water, sand and pail, all together DOOR TYPE I Single set through the door with water, sand and pail Door Jamb Detail 1:1 @ A1 ![A technical cross-section detail drawing showing wall or door frame dimensions and labels A-D.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221009.jpg) Vision Panel Detail 1:1 @ A1 ![A technical architectural cross-section detail showing screws and framing components, likely illustrating door frame installation or structural connection.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221014.jpg) Two Leaf Door Jamb Detail 1:1 @ A1 ![A technical architectural section detail showing the construction and fixing of an internal door frame with labeled components.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221015.jpg) Door Head Jamb Detail 1:1 @ A1 ![A technical architectural cross-section detail drawing showing a floor and wall junction with labeled components and dimension lines.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221016.jpg) Key A: General Information B: A: A1 C: A1 D: A1 E: A1 F: A1 G: A1 H: A1 ![A technical architectural section drawing detailing the installation of a door frame within a wall, with notes on matching finishes and jamb positioning.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/7221017.jpg) Door Head Detail Existing Stone Wall 1:2 @ A1 Door Head New Partition 1:2 @ A1 Door Jamb Detail New Partition 1:5 @ A1 Door Jamb Detail Existing Stone Wall 1:5 @ A1 ## 4.0 | Similar Listed Building References ![A collage of four interior photographs showing a corridor with arched doorways, a large hall with exposed wooden beams and seating, and red brick arches.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/08/233299.jpg) Manchester University Coupland Building - New doors within historic building Lancaster Royal Grammar School - New doors within historic building --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/31278-malew-king-williams-college-doors/documents/1053740*