of reed thatch but the Inspector accepted the evidence before him that long straw thatch would historically have been more readily available in the area and that this would be the traditional material for the locality. He acknowledged that the nature of the material itself is such that the form of a finished roof in long straw thatch would be more rounded and less crisp than a roof thatched in the tougher reed thatch but that the difference between the two materials would be more apparent in the case of a complex roof with dormers or outshots which would require the different slopes to be gently merged or swept in together to preserve the character of the building and also to ensure a watertight construction. The existing form of the main roof element was extremely simple comprising two plane slopes between the end gables of the building. In consequence he concluded that the visual difference between long straw thatch and reed thatch would be hardly noticeable in itself, especially if the thatcher were to take pains, as suggested, to round off the crisp edges which are more typical of reed thatch. In these circumstances he had no doubt that the visual differences between reed thatch and the long straw thatch which has been used on other buildings in the vicinity would not be noticeable once an initial period of weathering had taken place. He concluded that the use of reed thatch would serve to preserve the essential qualities of the historic building, subject to certain conditions to control the detailing, and that in view of the overall merits of this building there was little to be gained by preserving a long straw thatch roof as a specific feature when a reed thatch roof will be practically indistinguishable. He considered that the re-thatching proposal should be allowed as an exception to the general advice on HERITAGE thatching given in PPG 15para.29. and those in the County Structure Plan and Deposit Draft Local Plan. Furthermore, he took into account the weathering qualities of reed thatch accepting that the greater resilience of the reed would se1ve to protect the building for longer, if properly maintained, and that to insist upon long straw thatch would impose a very significant cost burden in the medium to long-term. In his view these arguments brought additional support to the appeal. Apart from the thatch material itself the Inspector stated that decorative details to thatched roofs vary in different parts of the count1y and was particularly concerned that the ridge details should be appropriate to its location, bearing in mind the simple but effective style which has been used on the existing roof. His view was that it was not necessary for the new roof finish to follow slavishly the pattern of the old, nor was it possible for detailed working drawings to be approved for such work with the meticulous care that might be appropriate to other details of buildings. The thatcher's art depended too much on the flair of the individual craftsman for that to be practical. Nevertheless, he believed that it would be realistic for a design statement, accompanied by a drawing or sketches, to be submitted to and approved by the Council to ensure that the traditions of that part of Suffolk were respected and imposed a condition to that effect and allowed the appeal. Michael Munt, the Mid Suffolk Conservation Officer, has made tbefollowing observations. Unfortunately, the Mid Suffolk Local Plan policy on this matter does not specifically cover thatch as a material to be retained in its present form. Rather, we have added to our policy a note which states that we will adopt the criteria in PPG 15, Annex C, paragraph C.29 of which specifically states that "When roofs are re-thatched, this should normally be done in a form of thatch traditional to the region, and local ways of detailing eaves, ridges and verges should be followed". Whilst the Inspector did discuss the eaves detail he did not pick up the wraparound verge which is prevalent in Mid Suffolk and which can only be satisfactorily done in long straw. There are two aspects of this decision which give cause for concern to Conservation Officers everywhere. The first is the philosophy adopted by an inspector who states that "there is little to be gained by preserving a long straw thatch roof as a specific feature when a reed thatch roof will be practically indistinguishable". The message to be read from this is why bother about such matters as the thickness of glazing bars, or the profile of the mortar joints as most people are not going to notice anyway?. Moreover, a later statement that in the inspector's view there is no need for the new roof pattern "to follow slavishly the pattern of the old", makes one wonder whether we should be bothering to encourage craft skills at all. Has SPAB got it all wrong? Secondly, the Inspector's assumption that to insist upon long straw would impose a "very significant cost burden in the medium to long term" is open to dispute and could be used to justify the use of second rate materials in other sensitive situations. As if to rub salt into the wound, a condition was attached to the appeal decision (which was left to the district council to enforce) asking for a design statement to be submitted which would presumably "round off the crisp edges" of the reed thatch. Surely if reed thatch is acceptable as a material it should not have to pretend that it is long straw? (Mid Suffolk Dislricl Council Planning Inspec1ora1eRefT/APP/W3520/F/96/813073/P8June 1997) MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ❖ ListedBuildinys ❖ Propert1,1fflanayement ❖ Linkedtodiyitalimayes • Available NOW • Receivedwith ACCLAMATION! • Unbeatable Imaging • Network ready • GIS linking, seamlessly • Greenbacksscanned, digitisedand OCR t~r v,ienA~WJ • Capture of images from digital cameras, film, slides, plans, etc. ORION IMAGING Ltd Comprehensive leaflet and demo disk available from: Tel:01633868811 Fax:01633868968 E-Mail:inlo@orions.co.uk Internet: htp://www.orions.co.uk Context 56 December 1997 11
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=