Our article on Friday with regard to a change in the aesthetic make up of roofs in St Francis Bay seems to have hit a popular chord judging by the comments received from readers.
A note from a local architect Trevor Tennant reminds us that the building guidelines or bye-laws for the village were formulated some 60 or so years ago with the “intention of creating a homogeneous urban fabric consisting of white walls and black or dark grey roofs”. This has certainly had the desired result and sets St Francis Bay apart from similar coastal developments as a sought after place to live.
The original roof spec was for thatch, to which concrete tiles and slate were permitted particularly after the 2012 devastating fires on the canals. More recently the rather attractive melthoid ‘shingle’ as introduced by Wattle & Daub is proving a popular alternative in spite of costs. But brick / concrete conversions are expensive as is the choice of the shingle option.
Tennant continues, “The Village area building regulations were written almost exclusively around the requirements for a domestic scale residence, with an addendum covering the industrial area where IBR was recognised as the norm for that category of building.
A separate dedicated code for commercial buildings was never produced and architects and designers were somehow expected to shoe horn their proposals into the domestic guidelines.”
St Francis Links followed the white walls black roof look as it was developed but not being limited to roofing choices as those in the village are, the Links has allowed aluminium roofing with not a single thatched roof having been added since the 2012 fire.
But choice of a ‘tin’ alternative it seems needs to be considered for not all ‘tin’ roofs are created equal and no doubt the aesthetics committee must have a say so the type and quality allowed of the roofing choice so as to ensure that St Francis Bay, if the transition to ‘tin’ is approved, that the town is not defaced with unsightly rust ridden residences in the coming years.