The reason we’re putting these photos up is to show Couthy Butts, both inside and outside, so those who weren’t able to visit on the open day that the owners ran (many did) can get a stronger understanding about the building.
Looking at the photos might bring you to the same conclusion – Why would the planning officers want this, the only example of Georgian worker’s cottages on the Island, demolished and all of the material removed from the site?
The owners want to restore the cottages using best-available advice, rebuilding any part as necessary with the indigenous stone, and then to restore the thatched roof.
Convert to living accommodation, for use by a shepherd to maintain their expanding organic sheep stock. The building for the sheep, which has been given planning permission for a new build, is a short distance away. Getting to the same site from the main road is a long and bumpy journey.
They don’t deny that they’ve done work to the cottages, saying that this is in reaction to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who told them that the building was dangerous in the condition it was in at the time, fearing someone getting hurt by falling masonry, despite it being on private property.
Some background
If you’re looking for some background on this confusing case, you could have a read over the previous Couthy Butts posts that we’ve put out.
Professor Russell from the CPRE wrote up his notes from the planning committee where it was voted 4 to 3 to not allow the planning permission, opening the path of the demolish the building.
In the earliest post, there’s a comment by descendants of people who have lived in the cottages many years ago.
Later posts also have comments that voice the views of some people who believe that perhaps the buildings should be knocked down and the various responses from the owners tackling the points raised.
It’s also worth having a listen to the Couthy Butts podcast to get an historical overview.
Planning Committee decision
The IW Planning Committee rely on the evidence from the planning department.
Having read the report submitted by the Planning officers and on visiting the site, we’re not surprised that the Planning Committee came to the decision they did. They were presented with information that doesn’t seem to add up.
Additionally, the presentation to the Planning Committee was by two planning officers who have a separate history with the applicants.
Councillors have to openly state any prejudicial interest in a planning application and quite rightly so.
If both of the planning officers who are presenting the case to the committee have, in the past, been accused by the applicant of not doing their job properly (to the head of the council and the ombudsman), is it right that they are connected with this application at all?
Reading the planning officer’s report a fresh, it appears to create the impression that this building is new. It is not a new build, it’s thought to be over 250 years old – many times the length of life of the planners.
Let’s not forget that the planning officers are using time, money and resources to prepare this information.
Is it really up to the planners to make a recommendation to take away this building from future generations?
Why demolish such old buildings?
Even if the owners have done really ‘bad things’ — which from the photos doesn’t look like they have — shouldn’t this building be restored because their historic significance, not marked for demolition?
The photos
One reason to show the picture of the location from the approach road is that the report from the planning officers to the committee stated that “the site occupies an open area of field that lacks any natural screening.”
Come again? All we could see were the trees sheltering it. When did trees become excluded from the ‘natural screening’ category?
Couthy Butts is behind this copse of trees, not that you’d have guessed.
The building that the planning department’s report to Planning Committee says that “remaining historic fabric is relatively limited.” Not the impression we had.
These interior shots were taken in sequence as we passed from the left hand side of the building towards the right. They show the original internal stonework.
The first two are both in the left hand building.
Next building along shows how the building previously had two floors. These two shots looking right.
This, the left hand wall of the middle unit, showing the chimney.
These two shots, looking left, from the left hand unit – the oldest part of the building.
The back of the building. On the left upper section you can see where some rebuilding had been made, something that owners don’t contest.
Far from it being unclear what parts of the building have been recently altered and what is genuinely original. From what we saw with our layman eyes, the difference is pretty obvious.
This shot probably shows the largest area of recent repair.
Corner stones, chiselled by hand.
An original Georgian window frame, complete with keystone.
You can see that the wall here is completely original. Also note the doorway has been, at some time, converted to a window.
Last two shots, showing the location from up on the hill.
