West Dunbartonshire Council’s planning committee has approved the application for the re-establishment of Ferry Dykes Canal House, also known as Ferrydykes Cottage, despite a recommendation to refuse it.
The old bridge keepers cottage which sits on the side of the Forth and Clyde Canal has been empty for several years and set alight on two occasions as a popular target for vandals.
It currently sits with most of its roof missing and in a state of derelict and its owner which purchased the building in 2006 is looking to create a family home.
The planning proposals include extending the property to add a one-story porch and reinstating the two-and-a-half-storey home to create a four-bedroom house.
Rear view of the property (Image: West Dunbartonshire Council)
Old Kilpatrick Community Council say they are ‘delighted’ to hear the building is being brought back into use as a home.
Their submission to the proposals cites that the cottage has been a ‘blight’ on the canal and that they are hopeful it will encourage further development in the historic part of the village.
A historic view of the old bridge keepers cottage (Image: West Dunbartonshire Libraries) However, a consultation with SEPA resulted in an objection in principle to the plans over fears people or property are at risk of flooding which they say is a dangerous situation.
If SEPA chooses to refer this to the Scottish Government they will then be able to make the decision on the application.
Lawrence O’Neill, Kilpatrick Councillor and convenor of West Dunbartonshire Council’s planning committee, voted against the proposals.
The vote ended up nine to one with his being the only submission against the proposals.
He said: “SEPA has put in an objection based on the grounds that someone would be living in it and over fears that the householders would be in a dangerous position.
“All other members were of the view that it should be granted. It’s a good bit away from the Clyde canal and the proposals will include drainage and tanking.
“I believe the view of the officers was that it would be protected. If it hadn’t been objected to by SEPA I would have gone for it and voted to grant it.”
