Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a cottage? Is it a house?

[Manks]

I have been struggling with a dilemma for a while. We are extending our house and though we have now settled on a plan the matter is not straightforward.

Once upon a time our house was an eighteenth century cottage. But it has been changed over the years both in terms of appearance and size. It is now a large 4-bed and most of the original front elevation no longer appears that of a cottage.

The extension we have applied for PP for will add a lounge and a bedroom, so the property will be a good sized 5-bed house, not really a cottage anymore. It will be broadly symetrical around the front door and the rooms are quite large.

If the property had been more original we would not have extended it in the way we are planning, but because it is no longer a good example of a vernacular building, we don't see any major problems. Apart from how to appoint the new extension.

Do we try to follow the cottage theme with modest fireplace etc or do we go for something else? We are thinking of having a fairly basic but reasonably large derbyshire stone fire surround with a basket, and having a picture rail but we will try not to make it too grand.

This project has taken a lot of thought and the problem has been that the more thought we have applied, the less easy it has become. There is no right answer.

But comments would be appreciated. Should we still treat the place as a cottage even though it doesn't look or feel like one? The locals seem to think we should and they are up in arms about our extension. I am increasingly thinking that if it looks like a house and feels like a house then...


Manks

 

[skier-hughes]

Of course I haven't seen it in any of it's guises, so my opinion is based on my own thoughts.

As other houses evolved, when they wre added to, they had extensions put on is keeping with the design philosphy of the day.

So I say build it how you like it, with some thought for those around you, which is why it is a mish maash of design already.

Graham

 

[Manks]

Graham

I am a traditionalist and I like symmetrical houses. What we are endeavouring to do is to unify the property and give it a cohesiveness that it lacks.

My question is, if a cottage has become as big as and proportioned like a house, is it a house and should it be fitted out as such?

Manks

 

[Moo]

One factor that could affect internal appointments is the height of the ceilings. Are they still cottage-height?

 

[Flyfisher]

I'd guess that the majority of listed buildings today are only the way they are because of the alterations and additions over many years, but that has not stopped them being deemed worthy of listing.

I think it's important not to destroy any of the existing building, but I can't see a problem with building sympathetic additions to it.

 

[Manks]

Moo

Nope, the original ceilings are about seven feet. Most of the house is now about nine feet.

Manks

 

[Moo]

Any chance of some pictures, so that we can see what the neighbours are up in arms about?

 

[Manks]

Moo

I will try to post some pictures tomorrow and explain what we are doing.

Last time I posted pictures on here no one believed that ours is a Georgian cottage. Biff Vernon has seen the house up close and he didn't think it was, I don't think. It is that removed from what it should be that I don't think we should be considering it in terms of its original design.

Manks

 

[Penners]

Manks - I'm not entirely sure that I understand your concerns. The term "cottage" is a very fluid one these days (although I believe that it originally meant a house whose upper rooms were under the roof). It seems largely to be used where the owner wants it to be used, regardless of the actual style of the building!

I presume that - as you have applied for PP and not LBC - that your building isn't listed. That being the case, and assuming you get your planning consent, it seems to me that you are perfectly at liberty to style the place according to your own preferences and tastes, regardless of whether it is now technically a house or a cottage.

As a matter of interest the trend these days for adding extensions to listed buildings seems to favour adopting a contemporary design theme, providing its design "sympathertic" to the original building. Pastiches are not popular with CO's it seems.

 

[Manks]

Penners

I am concerned for two reasons.

1.I feel a sense of responsibility to the property.

2. My plans have been criticised and therefore I want to make sure I get this right.

 

[Penners]

I applaud your sense of responsibility towards the building, but what you're talking about really comes down to personal taste.

And there can be no rights or wrongs in taste. Only personal preferences.

As for the criticisms, am I right in thinking that these are coming from locals who don't want to see the building extended? If so, then I'm afraid you'll just have to decide whether you can live with these criticisms or not. Remember that, in the entire history of the world, there has never been a building alteration that hasn't been criticised by someone. In general, people don't like change. And the longer things have remained unchanged, the more they dislike any change.

They have a democratic right to object to your application for PP, but if their objections fail to prevent consent, that's life.

I predict that, whatever decisions you make about the style of your extension, there will be at least a few mumbles of discontent. But they'll get used to it in time.

 

[skier-hughes]

And it's far better they spend time not liking it than you.

 

[Manks]

Okay

Here are some snaps. The one with the canopy is the left hand side of the house, the other is the right. Imagine them joined.

What we propose to do is extend the left hand side so that the house is approximately symmetrical around the front door. The step back will be about a brick or two bricks.

We will also be removing the red pantiles and replacing with plain tile, in order to unify the whole lot.

As I said, the place doesn't LOOK like a Georgian cottage. This is because it has been so messed about with. The part of the house with the canopy on it is a new skin round the old building. Inside it has low ceilings in the old part with beams that are clearly 18th Century or so.

Manks

[/img]

[/img]

 

[Penners]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/manks/2-11-06133.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

Not quite sure what you were up to there, Manks, but I don't think it quite came off.

 

[Gervase]

Ah!

 

[Nemesis]

It seems a reasonable solution - but a shame to remove the pantiles, which are lovely.

Why are the neighbours objecting?

 

[Manks]

Nemesis

Re the tiles. The choices I have are either to do the new extension under pantiles, so we'd have pantiles, plain tiles, pantiles. Or I change the lot for plain tiles.

With the small extension under pantile it suggests that the extension is not part of the house.

The reason the locals are complaining and the stated reason are different. Their ostensible reason is that it is a "hotchpotch". However this is the opposite of the truth. It will actually unify the separate odds and sods. The real reason is, I guess, resistance to change and the possibility that I might make money from the work.

Manks

 

[Nemesis]

I'd keep the tiles and maybe put them on the extension also.- if you want symmetry, although I'd just leave it as it is with them on that section. Many places where the roofs are different, showing growth and change over time.

Just because they object of course is no reason for it to be refused.

 

[Manks]

Nemesis

You are not the first person to suggest the historic growth argument, but I am a bit fond of order and to me it is offensive. Also the planning officer said that if we were doing the extension in plain tile she would want the small extension changed to that too.

The planning officer has already said she will not be swayed by the whingeing. But I am offended by it because of the thought and care I am putting into this.

Manks

 

[Moo]

My word - they have messed it about, haven't they? I can't think what the neighbours have got to complain about - when I saw the first picture (the one with the front door) I thought it was an inter-war council house.

Getting rid of those nasty plastic windows and the off-the-peg canopy over the front door would improve things no end.