Architect vs Conservation Officer

[Penners]

We have a standing joke in our family, about a child once overheard shouting, "Oh... bollops!"

A useful substitute for the more widely used expletive, when the vicar is visiting.

 

[ajbaker]

I've generally been happy with his approach, so hope the ar*e hole term does not apply. I understand your comments and reasons middi, and would imagine they do apply in this case. While I am upset that we cannot proceed with this plan, the reason I am angry is his complete u-turn on the proposals which has cost me money. (He is still willing to consider the extension, but half the width of the existing house.)

Your comments regarding an extension being well-defined are interesting since he has stated any roofing will need to be similar in pitch and material to the existing. Since in this case the roof will be the most prominent feature, the use of similar materials/design does seem to contrast with your statement. Just wondering if you are able to explain? (I might post plans in the near future)

As regards the reasoning, he stated removal of historic interest and visibility were primary reasons. Neither of which are relevant in this case. I don't understand the difference between having a wall visible from the inside of the property, and it being visible from just outside the property (it being obscured from view by the angle at which outbuildings project from the house.)

To follow on, I have uploaded the sketches for your perusal. (I do not retain copyright on these so please don't copy them, though I don't quite understand why you would want to anyway!)

Originals here...

I would appreciate your comments, but please go easy on me - this is my first property, and am trying to balance everything in my own mind. If there is anything not clear in the illustration, just ask. Point to bare in mind: the extension would be lower than existing house, meaning more rear wall can be exposed, a clear divide between old and new wold be achieved, and everything of the original would be retained, inc doors etc.)

 

[middi]

Hi ajbaker, I think it was a bit confusing when I used the terminology " distinguishible", it refered only to dimensions smaller than the existing and not necessarely the materials used for the build.

Normally materials used for any additions to a LB have to conform to building reg's, local custom and not detract from the general aspect of the existing building, as you know these have to be approved by the CO in any case.

I had a peep at the outline drawings which you posted, I agree you are definetely not proposing to build a monstrosity and can only assume that the CO has an adverse view and concerned about setting a president regarding the terraced aspect of the property. The concern here may be that the neighbours may follow your example and destroy to some extend the whole aspect of the terraced dwellings, hence the decision for only an "half width" extension.

I am only guessing and trying to read between the lines and the CO mind.

I must add that I am not an architect or CO, just a restoration builder with some passion towards old buildings, having had a fair amount of contact with CO's, it is only on these basis that I have passed my comments.

 

[ajbaker]

Middi. Thanks for your comments; it's nice that you said it is not a monstrosity - I would hate for my ideas to be considered as such, regardless of whether they were acceptable or not to the 'establishment'.

I have asked the CO to put his objections in writing; at least this way I can begin to get my head around his thoughts.

Thanks for clarifying yourself re "distinguishible".

 

[Penners]

AJ - bearing in mind what I said above, have you considered moving the extension away from the property by a metre or so, and then linking it to the existing back door with a link corridor? As I said, this seems to be viewed by CO's much more favourably than extensions built against a listed building, because it leaves the original building virtually untouched and visually separate from the extension.

I don't know how much back garden you've got beyond the extension as sketched above, but if you can spare an extra metre or so, you might like to consider suggesting this to the CO.

 

[Moo]

I'm sure I saw something like that on Grand Designs some time ago. Penners is right - it looked stunning.

 

[Nemesis]

This is Causeway House Northumberland - Landmark Trust.

That's what was done here - the original house is extended back to form a kitchen and bathroom, at right angles. You can about see the roof here.