Loading document...
The church bought a farmhouse and surrounding land in Ballaugh in 1878, and this property then became 'The Rectory' for the next 100 years. We have no idea how long the cabin/summerhouse has existed, but we know that during this time of belonging to the church it was known as the 'Rector's Summerhouse', and from letters we found we believe that the summerhouse was even used as a residence during the 1950s. Later though, the church built a new, modern replacement rectory nearby, and sold off 'The Rectory' and it's land/gardens which included the summerhouse. In 1987 the latest owner changed the house name to 'The Old Rectory' and later in 1992 she applied for change of use for the Rector's Summerhouse (see PA94/00914/B). I believe by this stage it was being used as storage, but the planning application meant that it then became both a future temporary residence, and also used as 'Homestay' until it became too delapidated and considered unsuitable. Then finally in 2016/17 we purchased an extra small plot of land containing the summerhouse from our neighbour at (and recent new owner of) 'The Old Rectory'; which by that point in time was once again being used as storage. We purchased the land containing the summerhouse in order to extend our garden as it was conveniently adjacent to our recently purchased house building plot.
At the time of our purchase, the summerhouse had already fallen into quite a bad state of disrepair; externally the cabin's wood-cladding was riddled with woodworm and falling apart, and internally there were holes in the walls leaving it open to become a permanent residence for a population of rodents, which inhabited both the wall space and the loft space. There had been a wooden conservatory added to the Wendy House in the 1990's, and we had noticed that the wood at the base of this was unfortunately becoming quite rotten too. At this time we were moving between here and the UK for work and to look after aging parents, so we had no time to consider larger maintenance ideas for the summerhouse for quite a few years, in the meantime only carrying out occasional small essential repairs.
Then last year (2022), we realised that the Wendy House was by now looking in quite a sorry state. Parts of the exterior cladding were beginning to fall off, the bathroom window was rotten and falling out, and the front roof was beginning to lose slates. Obviously this wasn't nice for the neighbours to view, but we also knew that if we left it much longer it would become too delapidated for merely 'maintenance'. The conservatory was by now quite rotten too, the doors on it would no longer shut, and an additional concern was that it's glass roof would collapse at some point, or that the slates slipping down the summerhouse roof could smash the panes; also there had been a gorgoyle ridge tile on the roof that someone had stolen from in situ a few years ago, which had initiated water ingress there.
So, in late Summer (2022), we decided that we needed to start externally recladding the Wendy House etc. We knew that we could not pull the frame down, so we had to reclad each of the sides, one at a time. Fortunately we had managed to obtain a photocopy of a 1994 photograph of the cabin as it had looked 'pre-conservatory days' and we thought it would be a good idea to use that as a
reference to make the outside look as practically near as possible in order to recreate the original 'Rector's Summerhouse' facade (see enclosed photo). Assessing the previous 1990's work, we knew that the workmen had removed the whole middle of the front wall which had originally included the exterior door to the building; henceforth they would use the outer conservatory double doors as means of door entry, (we even found the original external 'Rector's Summerhouse' door rotting behind the cabin amongst the piles of debris from the 1990's conservatory installation work). They had also excavated and lowered the ground outside to accomodate the conservatory, before concreting a floor base for both the conservatory and the outer stone paving.
Regarding the roof, we decided the rear (south-east) elevation was actually in quite good condition having only one broken slate, so we decided to leave that as it was; but the roof on the front (north-west) elevation of the summerhouse was in pretty poor shape as this gets all the weather and wear and tear from any twigs or branches falling from overhead off the nearby Elm tree, and it appeared too that they had used poorer quality slates than had been used on the rear, so we decided to re-slate the front and removed those slates accordingly (this to date remains felted but unslated)
Initially our project was just a case of preserving/maintaining the outer building, but the cabin contained a kitchen and bathroom, so in February '23, when the cladding had been carried out we decided to renovate them a little, putting in a new shower. Also as a last thought, due to recently inheriting a wood-burning stove, we fitted that along with a flue through the roof. My husband firstly researched the flue addition online and mistakenly understood that it was OK to fit a flue as long as it didn't over-reach the roofline by more than a metre; unfortunately this was prior to the DEFA Officer recently saying that those were presumably UK regulations which didn't apply to the Isle of Man. Around that same time we had also refitted the flue for the water heater to go up out of the roof instead of through the wall where it had been previously, resulting in there being now 2 new flues above the roofline.
We don't really know if this is relevent to the case, but also, due to the garden having been dug out during the 1990's conservatory building work and the ensuing high steps up into the Summerhouse, we also built a short garden wall on the previous concrete footing to bring the level back up and we intended to either pave or grass on top of that as a type of flat area in front of the cabin.
Please note that there is a large old Elm tree with a TPO (RT0209) next to the summerhouse, but as there was no need to need to carry out any excavation, neither the tree nor it's roots could have been impacted or harmed in any way.
To summarise more concisely, the following work has been undertaken by us during the project:-
Due to both a serious woodworm infestation and rot, the painted outer wooden cladding was falling off the frame of the building. We have replaced this with similar, treated but unpainted, ship-lap wood cladding.
The rear (South-East facing) roof remains exactly the same as it was, as there is only one broken slate to be replaced. However, we have removed the (North-West facing) front slates of the roof due to their being so many missing or broken Spanish slates. To date the North-West roof remains unslated due to the our planning application, but we were considering replacing the removed slates with grey 'Tapco' slates (see photo), which look very similar to the removed slates but are a more durable option, manufactured from recyclable virgin limestone and polypropylene. These slates provide the aesthetic of the original slates without the added weight, or the risk of cracks and breakages as happened in the past due to strong winds and the twigs and branches falling down from the canopy of the large aged Elm tree limbs above (ref: RT0209). https://roofin.co.uk/product-category/pitched-roofing/synthetic-slate/tapco-synthetic-roofing/tapco-slate-classic/
Both the wood around the base of the conservatory, and also the base of it's doors had become quite rotten and irrepairable, and the doors no longer closed. We considered the relatively 'modern' style of the conservatory to be quite out of keeping with the original building style and thought that it would improve the aesthetics of the summerhouse if we removed it, having no idea of replacing it at all (see old aerial photo possibly taken around the year 2000) The middle of the front North-West elevation of the summerhouse had been removed in the 1990's to accomodate the addition of the wooden, double-glazed conservatory, so we had to fill this in - see 'WINDOWS and DOOR' below.
Due to almost all of the wooden windows being rotten (one had actually fallen out), we have replaced them, again with wood ones with a similar small pane look to the originals; there was one situated towards the rear of the North-East elevation and 5 in the NorthWest (front) elevation. The 2 original single pane, aluminium frames on the South-West elevation side of the Summerhouse remain in situ. There was no door on the Summerhouse when we purchased it as it had been removed, so we replaced the original missing one with a wooden door which we personally thought was aesthetically pleasing. Then, as the whole middle of the wall on the front North-West elevation had also been removed prior to us purchasing the summerhouse land, we filled in the extra space not already covered by the replacement main door with a larger door containing another window matching the other 5 . We cladded this larger door too in order to match up to the rest of the new cladding, to help give the overall appearance of the original 'Rector's Summerhouse'.
There was originally a flue going out of the wall for the water heater, so we replaced that with one going through the roof, this stands 250 mm above the roofline, this can be removed if it's not acceptable to Planning regulations There was no woodburning stove in the summerhouse originally but we did install one, along with a twin-walled flue which stands 630 mm above the roofline. Please note that we would like to have this stove in there but it's not essential to us, so if not allowed by Planning then we can easily remove it.
We wanted to make a flat patio area outside the summerhouse as we considered that this would straighten and improve the appearance of the area, and so we built a short wall on the original footings of the conservatory/paved area (see enclosed photo).
We had finished the cladding, replaced the windows and door, removed the front roof slates, and fitted the flues when we received a letter from DEFA on 14th June, informing us that we could in breach of planning regulations. With hindsight we then realised that we had naively assumed that because we weren't changing any building dimensions or removing any walls, that the work we had carried out was just considered maintenance and repairs, so it was quite an unsettling shock to find out by a letter that we could potentially be contravening any planning rules. We were now made aware that the flues could potentially be a problem and we realised that possibly we shouldn't have assumed that it would be ok without checking first with the Planning Dept. but even at this point we just thought that was no problem as they could be removed and so the problems would be quite easily rectified. So, I immediately replied to the DEFA letter, requesting a visit from the officers as I assumed that once they saw we had merely repaired the building things would be ok, but through their visit, it became very apparent that we hadn't been allowed to do ANY repairs/maintenance on the summerhouse building at all, because there was a clause attached to it, totally unknown by us, that under the conditions for previous planning approval PA94/00914/B THE PROPOSED BUILDING MUST BE USED ONLY AS ACCOMODATION ANCILLARY TO 'THE OLD RECTORY' AND MUST NOT BE USED AS A DWELLINGHOUSE IN IT'S OWN RIGHT, which had obviously been issued to the previous owner's mother. It was then explained by the Enforcement Officers, that due to the clause, although we had purchased the building on the land we'd had no rights to do anything whatsoever to the summerhouse without Planning approval. Just to stress that throughout our maintenance project, we actually had no intention of using the building as any type of accomodation; our plans were literally to stop it falling into a ruin and make it safe, improve it's appearance and put it to use for storage, a potting shed, or in my husband's case a type of a 'man cave' hobby shed.
We were always very aware that we couldn't excavate near the summerhouse due to the adjacent old Elm tree with a TPO on it, and also that we couldn't demolish the summerhouse and rebuild, but we literally had no idea that we could possibly be doing anything wrong by carrying out 'maintenance', as we saw it. In our defence we had absolutely no knowledge of the 'ancillary' clause at all, or possibly what it might even mean to us if we had; it was never mentioned or discussed with our advocate when we purchased the land, and unfortunately even the neighbour (vendor) also had no idea this clause existed because he had inherited the property from his mother.
If it helps our case at all, as we said to the DEFA Officers we can of course remove the flues easily if that is directed, and will correct absolutely anything else that is necesassary to make things right by the Planning Dept. Also, it goes without saying that we will definitely not undertake any future work on the property without planning approval. Last but not least, we are both obviousy extremely sorry and we apologise profusely for any breaches to planning regulations which we have inadvertantly made whilst undertaking this
project. Yours sincerely, Tony \& Elaine Milligan
NOTE: The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of domestic type smoke detectors.
BUILDING CONFERENCE
RECEIVED ON
1 AUG 2023
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND AGRICULTURE
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
