Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Site Location: Site Report: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 THE BUILDING Court Moat is a late 18th century house. It was added to the Statutory List in 1952, Listed Grade II. Based on an L- shaped plan, this substantial farmhouse is brick built under a clay tile roof. It features 3- light wood mullion and transom leaded windows with segmental arched heads and a 6 fielded panel front door with a 19th century gabled timberwork porch. Whilst its main frontage was designed to make a grand statement, its side elevations are more modest. The garden front has seen the addition of a wood effect UPVC conservatory, built some time after 1986. Access to the conservatory is gained through a doorway from the kitchen, created by cutting through a chimneybreast. THE APPLICATION This is a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a conservatory and alterations to a chimneybreast to provide access through. CONSULTEES Ham and Stone Parish Council have supported the application, stating that the works are in keeping with the listed building. 204
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Policy considerations with regard to listed building matters are given in PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Built Environment": Paragraph 3.3 states, 'There should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings, except where a convincing case can be made out ...for alteration or demolition.' Paragraph 3.12 says, ' In judging the effect of any alteration or extension it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question.' Paragraph 3.13 says, 'Many listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension...Indeed, cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions...should not be discounted.' Paragraph C.5 states, 'Subsequent additions to historic buildings, including minor accretions such as conservatories, porches, balconies, verandas, door dressings, bargeboards or chimneys, do not necessarily detract from the quality of a building. They are often of interest in their own right as part of the building's organic history...' Paragraph C.7 says, 'Modern extensions should not dominate the existing building in either scale, material or situation. There will always be some historic buildings where any extensions would be damaging and should not be permitted. Successful extensions require the application of an intimate knowledge of the building type that is being extended together with a sensitive handling of scale and detail.' Paragraph C.37 states, 'Modern off-the-peg doors are not generally acceptable for use in listed buildings, nor are doors with incongruous design features such as integral fanlights. Unpainted hardwood or stained or varnished softwood doors are rarely suitable.' Paragraph C.47 says, 'Paint is usually the correct finish for timber windows; staining is not a traditional finish and should not normally be used. However, early windows of oak were commonly limewashed or left unpainted and these should not now be painted but left to weather naturally.' Paragraph C.49 says, 'The insertion of factory made standard windows of all kinds, whether in timber, aluminium, galvanised steel or plastic is almost always damaging to the character and appearance of historic buildings. In particular, for reasons of strength the thickness of frame members tends to be greater in plastic or aluminium windows than in traditional timber ones.' CONCLUSIONS The subject of this retrospective application is a wood- effect UPVC conservatory, the removal of a fireplace and the creation of doorway through the chimney breast. These works were carried out without Listed Building Consent some time after 1986. Had this application been submitted prior to construction your Officers believe that it would not have been looked on favourably. In itself, the removal of the fireplace (a 1950s ceramic tiled replacement) would not have been an issue. However, the manner in which the new doorway has been formed, involving significant destruction of historic fabric, is insensitive and unacceptable. The modern stained hardwood door between the kitchen and the conservatory is inappropriate for a Listed building and clearly contrary to PPG 15 policy. Whilst the building of a conservatory may be acceptable in principle, the methods of construction, design and materials used in this case are all unsuitable. Your Officers are currently involved in pre- application discussions with the new purchasers about a possible replacement of the 205
- Page 153 and 154: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 155 and 156: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 157 and 158: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 159 and 160: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 161 and 162: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 163 and 164: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 165 and 166: Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
- Page 167 and 168: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 169 and 170: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 171 and 172: Site No: Parish: Recommendation Pla
- Page 173 and 174: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 175 and 176: Recommendation Permission Planning
- Page 177 and 178: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 179 and 180: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
- Page 181 and 182: Application Type: Development: Appl
- Page 183 and 184: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 185 and 186: Site No: Parish: Applicant Details:
- Page 187 and 188: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 189 and 190: ITEM No: 34 Application Site Addres
- Page 191 and 192: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 193 and 194: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 195 and 196: ITEM No: 36 Application Site Addres
- Page 197 and 198: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 199 and 200: Application Type: Development: Appl
- Page 201 and 202: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 203: Date Received: Planning Schedule Da
- Page 207 and 208: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 209 and 210: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 211 and 212: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 213: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
THE BUILDING<br />
Court Moat is a late 18th century house. It was added to the Statutory List in 1952, Listed Grade<br />
II.<br />
Based on an L- shaped plan, this substantial farmhouse is brick built under a clay tile roof. It<br />
features 3- light wood mullion and transom leaded windows with segmental arched heads and a<br />
6 fielded panel front door with a 19th century gabled timberwork porch.<br />
Whilst its main frontage was designed to make a grand statement, its side elevations are more<br />
modest. The garden front has seen the addition of a wood effect UPVC conservatory, built some<br />
time after 1986.<br />
Access to the conservatory is gained through a doorway from the kitchen, created by cutting<br />
through a chimneybreast.<br />
THE APPLICATION<br />
This is a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a conservatory<br />
and alterations to a chimneybreast to provide access through.<br />
CONSULTEES<br />
Ham and Stone Parish <strong>Council</strong> have supported the application, stating that the works are in<br />
keeping with the listed building.<br />
204
Change language