Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the reports to members.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ben Oakley of SAVE Britain’s Heritage.

 

Mr Oakley explained that SAVE Britain’s Heritage is a national heritage charity that has been campaigning for historic buildings and their reuse since it was established in 1975 and as a non-statutory organisation it receives no government funding. SAVE selects very carefully the cases it chooses to comment on, and those it decides to pursue at Planning Committee and given the principles at stake with today’s applications with regard to upholding national planning policies for the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment, SAVE has chosen to raise its concerns at today’s Planning Committee meeting. He added that as the Conservation Officer for SAVE, he wished to draw the committee’s attention to three urgent breaches of national planning policy guidance he has identified in these applications seeking the demolition of the curtilage Listed Coach House at 22 London Road, Chatteris:

 

Mr Oakley contested the erroneous claim in the applicant’s Heritage Statement that the Coach House “is not considered as a heritage asset within the listing description of 22 London Road, indeed it is not even noted as having group value”. He stated that the former Coach House is a Grade II curtilage Listed structure, protected by law under the Planning Act (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990 as a designated heritage asset to the same degree as the Grade II Listed house at 22 London Road, with Historic England’s Planning Advice Note 10 ‘Listed Buildings and Curtilage’ helpfully providing an almost exact case study of the listed status of a house and curtilage coach house.

 

Mr Oakley expressed the view that SAVE consider the applicant has, therefore, failed to fully describe the heritage significance of the heritage assets impacted by their proposals, as required by law under Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019. He added that, having failed to sufficiently understand the significance of the assets affected, this application has not represented the level of harm arising from total demolition and consequently not offered sufficient justification or articulation of public benefit to outweigh this harm, as required by Paragraphs 194 and 195 of the NPPF 2019 and for the sake of clarity, SAVE do not consider the provision of one private dwelling with no public access to be a public benefit.

 

Mr Oakley expressed the opinion that the application is not compliant with the requirements of national policy guidance and added that the planning system is in place, to define and manage the positive contribution of historic buildings, not describe their lack of significance to justify demolition. He stated that the fact that this single application has drawn objections from four national heritage bodies (the Council for British Archaeology, the Victorian Society, Ancient Monuments Society and SAVE) is unusual and significant.

 

Mr Oakley concluded by expressing the view that it is a matter of legal duty and principle that the Planning Committee uphold the recommendation of the planning officer to reject this application and require any future applications comply with local and national planning policy designed to protect and enhance Chatteris’ historic environment.

 

Members asked Mr Oakley the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked whether he had carried out a desk top study or carried out a site visit? Mr Oakley stated that, due to the Covid 19 pandemic, he has not visited the site.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Weetman.

 

Mr Weetman expressed the view that the District Council should be clear that the application it is dealing with here is an application for the demolition of a Grade II Listed coach house, as confirmed by the Conservation Officer and four national societies that are statutory consultees on this application and experts in historic buildings. He made the point that whilst demolition of a Listed Building is not completely out of the question, Section 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework says that the loss of a Grade II Listed Building should be “exceptional” and Section 195 lists criteria which must be met before an application to demolish a Listed Building is approved.

 

Mr Weetman explained the criteria and stated that firstly the applicant must show that the building cannot be successfully marketed for renovation by someone else and, in his opinion, the applicant has not shown any evidence they have tried to market the property. He stated that in late November a Chatteris resident indicated a willingness to buy the property for use as a workshop and art gallery, saying that they have funding in place and until this offer has been investigated by the applicant and all attempts to market the property for renovation are exhausted, the NPPF is clear that demolition should not be approved.

 

Mr Weetman stated that secondly the applicant must show that the building cannot not be restored with grant funding or by a charity, such as a building preservation trust. He explained that there are several building preservation trusts operating in this area, but there is no evidence that the owner has attempted to see if one of these could take on this Listed Building.

 

Mr Weetman added that the owner says in their supplementary planning statement that the restoration is not financially viable for them and that “the only circumstances where this would not be the case would be a personal ‘grand designs’ project or development for charitable or community purposes with donated funding”. He added that the applicant seems to admit that there is a possibility of funding, or a sale to a private owner or charity, but does not demonstrate that they have made all possible attempts to secure the building’s future via this route and until they do so, the NPPF is clear that demolition should not be approved.

 

Mr Weetman stated that thirdly the building must have absolutely no other possible uses without the loss of the Listed Building and the owner previously applied to convert the building into a three-bed property, but this was refused on the grounds that it would result in substantial damage to heritage assets - namely the impressive barrel-vaulted ceilings inside the property. In their report, the Conservation Officer suggested ways in which the building could be appropriately converted to a 1-bed or 2-bed property. He stated that the applicant says that this would not be financially viable, but the owner must have known this when they purchased the site in December 2017 and in any case, it is not sufficient to argue that renovation of a Listed Building is not financially viable; the applicant must show that renovation is not at all possible and they have not done so.

 

Mr Weetman expressed the view that the structural survey submitted by the applicant does not appear to have been carried out with a conservation-first mindset and explained that only in October last year, the same applicant had insisted that the building was in a suitable state of repair for conversion to a 3-bed home, questioning as to what has changed since then? He stated that if the coach-house was ripe for conversion in 2019, why is demolition suddenly the only option now and if the coach house has deteriorated so significantly in such a short period of time then the owner has perhaps failed to uphold their duty of care to their Listed Building.

 

Mr Weetman expressed the opinion that the Council has a variety of options available to ensure that this is remedied. Part 191 of the National Planning Policy Framework says that in the case of “deliberate neglect of, or damage to,a heritageasset, thedeteriorated stateof theheritage assetshould notbe takeninto account in anydecision”. He stated that the previous application for conversion to a 3-bed property was refused on the grounds that it would result in harm to a designated heritage asset and this application is more serious in nature and would result in the complete loss of a designated heritage asset.

 

Mr Weetman made the point that Fenland District Council’s own Planning Code of Conduct refers to Local Government Ombudsman cases where planning applications are granted after previously being refused and it says: “there is perversity and maladministration, if a Local Planning Authority approves a planning application, which has previously been refused, where there has not been a significant change in the planning circumstances.” and in order to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Chairman of this committee would need to explain the “significant change” that makes the significant harm to this heritage asset justified in 2020 when lesser harm was not justified in 2019. He added that fact that this committee did not review the previous application is insufficient, and members have a duty to ensure consistency across the planning system here in Fenland and this is in addition for planning reasons being required to justify ignoring the breach of 13 different planning policies listed in the officer’s report.

 

Mr Weetman concluded by stating that the Chatteris Conservation Area was added to Historic England’s “at risk” register in 2015 and that Chatteris cannot afford the loss of another historic building within the Conservation Area, or it runs the risk of losing the special status afforded to its lovely historic town. He added that some people say that no one is prepared to invest in old buildings like this, but recent renovations of 133 High Street, the chapel on Bridge Street, buildings in East Park Street, and applications to restore the old rope works, 12 East Park Street, 16 Park Street, the former chapel on West Park Street, and 11-13 High Street all show that there is a willingness to renovate old buildings and a desire to live in them and the applicant should either Brestore this Listed building or be prepared to hand it over to someone else who will.

 

Members asked Mr Weetman the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Weetman whether he is a Chatteris resident? Mr Weetman confirmed that he is a Chatteris resident and he is also the Chairman of the Civic Society, Chatteris, Past, Present and Future.

 

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kate Wood, the Agent and Richard Donoyou, the Heritage Consultant.

 

Ms Wood explained that she is the planning agent for the applications and is accompanied by Richard Donoyou, who is the applicant’s heritage consultant.

She explained that that the main thrust of their case is that whilst the Coach House is Listed by virtue of being within the curtilage of a formerly Listed Building, its heritage value and significance is minor, with the building having been significantly altered over the years and is not a good example of such buildings and added that Richard Donoyou will be showing some photographs of the interior of the building. She suggested that if members are in any doubt about approving the demolition of the building, that they may wish to defer the decision on this application in order to allow them to visit the site and see inside the building.

 

Ms Wood stated that as members are aware, the Town Council is in support of the application and there have been no objections from the Highway Authority. She explained that the site is in a location where residential development is appropriate in planning terms, and does not have any detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, and she is happy to accept the conditions that have been suggested within the officers report and added that the only matter outstanding is therefore the desirability or otherwise of retaining this curtilage Listed Building.

 

Mr Donoyou stated that the development of 22 London Road and the site of the former builder’s merchants has been the subject of discussions with Fenland Planning Department since 2017. He feels there are three elements to the project; the restoration of the Listed 22 London Road from a builder’s merchants shop and store to a dwelling, the demolition of the asbestos storage building and development of the yard for housing and the conversion of the Coach House to residential uses. He explained that these have all been subject to intensive pre?application discussions over a 3-year period and a scheme for 22 London Road and the new housing (applications F/YR19/0355/F & F/YR19/0356/LB) were approved in October 2019.

 

Mr Donoyou explained that 22 London Road is a late 19^th c house which was altered at the turn of the 20^th century and subject to substantial and idiosyncratic alterations, particularly to the rear wing, in the 1920’s. The 1920’s alterations included adding a substantial first floor bay structure supported on steel columns, inserting sash windows with a highly unusual horizontal emphasis and pebble?dashing the upper storey under a new roof. He stated that It was something of a surprise when the Conservation Officer suggested demolishing the rear wing due to the structure being of an eccentric/unusualdesign and, the structural integrity, particularly of the bay was suspect and showed evidence of stress and this section of the building could not readily be restored without substantialrebuilding, despite the fact that this would result in the loss of about 25% of the Listed Building, and, therefore, potential accommodation, the applicant agreed to this, submitted detailed plans and the Listed Building Consent included provision for this part demolition and these wereapproved in 2019.

 

Mr Donoyou explained that the Coach House was built in 2 phases in the 1870’s, the southerly section was constructed first and the range running toward 22 London Road built soon after. He expressed the view it is very clear the range section was substantially altered, and some unusual idiosyncratic design elements introduced, which included a new heightened roof of flimsy construction that requires a “bodged” roof detail with the southerly structure,the insertion of 2-barrel vaulted lathe and plaster ceilings with an attic ceiling, all supported by the new roof structure, demolition of the north gable and replacement, a metre or so further south, with a new gable wall in “Phorpres” bricks and the adaptation / alteration of the rear (west) wall to install new doors top hung on rollers.

 

Mr Donoyou made the point that just as these unusual design elements have not stood the test of time on the rear wing of the Listed 22 London Road, so there are serious structural failings in the Coach House, with reports by a qualified structural engineer and a specialist plaster repair have concluded that key structural elements, most notably large sections of the range building and its roof, are incapable of repair and that repair of the walls would in effect require rebuilding; repair of the roof would require a complete new structure because the existing structure is of inadequate sizing and construction and, therefore, it has to be accepted that, if a building is to be converted to new uses, in this case residential, then the building has to be made structurally sound and be reasonable comfortable and safe to live. He stated that a builder is legally committed to offering a guarantee of sound design andworkmanship.

 

Mr Donoyou concluded by stating that the applicant has worked very hard with the Conservation Officer to reach a satisfactory scheme and, in his opinion, this application represents a solution that will conserve the streetscape and has a fair amount of support from the local residents.

 

Members asked Ms Wood and Mr Donoyou the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Donoyou whether it is just the older parts of the building that would fall under the status of Grade 2 Listing? Mr Donoyou stated that the most basic test for listing is for buildings constructed before 1840 and that are substantially intact and this building was built after 1840 and is not substantially intact and, therefore, if it was not connected to the Listed Building and is just a building in its own right it would not be listable.

·         Councillor Marks added that a site visit would be beneficial and asked whether any of the materials could be recycled and reused so that the Listed part could be used somewhere else. Mr Donoyou stated that the developer would not wish to do anything other than ensure the bricks and tiles were available for reuse. Councillor Marks asked whether the ceilings could be reused and Mr Donoyou explained that the ceilings are constructed from lath and plaster and in the larger ceiling there is no plaster left and the lath is rotten and the other two ceilings the plaster is very poor and was never put up very well originally. Mr Donoyou added that the reason the ceilings are barrel vaulted is because they have a zinc ventilation shaft at the top and historically the building could have been used for poultry rearing or other animal stock. Councillor Marks asked what percentage of the ceilings are salvageable and what would have to be replaced? Mr Donoyou stated that, in his opinion, the ceilings are not salvageable.

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Donoyou whether he was involved with the previous application in 2019 as the Heritage Consultant? Mr Donoyou confirmed that he was the consultant in 2019 and the application at that time was for a conversion and the developer was very much aware that the property was on the edge as far as viability was concerned. He added that the application was for a three bedroomed dwelling and involved the removal of some of the ceilings and their replacement. He stated that the Conservation Officer was unable to agree to any loss of any of the ceilings and only agreed to a 1 bedroomed dwelling and this was not deemed to be viable by the developer due to the costs involved and removal of any of the fabric of the building was deemed as unacceptable by the Conservation Officer and the application was refused. Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that if you own a Grade 2 Listed Building you should be responsible for keeping it in good repair. Mr Donoyou stated that the position is not that the building was in one state 18 months ago and is now in a totally different state. He added that 18 months ago the application was submitted with a structural report which has now been updated, however, 18 months ago the report was not complimentary about the building but the intention was that the conversion scheme would allow for the repair of the building with substantial repair costs. He added that the owner of the building had intended on conserving and converting the building, but this has proved not to be possible and, therefore, an alternative course of action is to say that the building is not capable of conversion in a way that is viable to the developer in this case and the costs to make it structurally sound require the other developments on the site to subsidise it. Mr Donoyou stated that figures were provided 18 months ago and again more recently, but an agreement could not be reached with the Conservation Officer who felt that elements of the building should be repaired in situ contrary to what his opinion is.

 

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that if the committee decide that the building should be demolished what is the legal position of the Council and could it prove costly to the authority? Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, expressed the view that yes it could prove costly as potentially in addition to the normal requirements of following the local plan policy and material considerations, the duty for a Listed Building is to give special importance to the desirability of preserving a Listed Building. He added that if members want to approve the application, they need evidence to counterbalance the strong legal presumption that the building should be preserved and evidence on the other side that there are some benefits or countermeasures which overcome the strong presumption. He expressed the opinion that from what he has heard there is not that evidence to overcome that strong legal presumption.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that there appears to be a focus on the lath and plaster ceilings, and he cannot understand why the Conservation experts cannot agree to the conversion of the building. David Rowen stated that he is aware that lath and plater ceilings can be replaced with the lath and plaster ceilings as well as numerous other repairs to Listed Buildings which are sympathetic to the historic fabric of them.

 

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has followed this application in its various forms since it was originally submitted in 2019 being at Chatteris Town Council when it was debated and at that time he welcomed the proposal for the 6 bungalows and the conversion of the house. He stated that the house is the Grade 2 Listing Building that members are looking at today and not the shed. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that with regard to the house this should be retained and should be restored to a house. He expressed surprise that the application has been split into two parts and had expected both of the applications to be passed as it would have brought the house back into use and the bungalows would have provided much needed homes. Councillor Benney stated that he was surprised to see the conversion of the Coach House was refused as it was never a Coach House, it was a farm building. He stated that he has read all the reports as to why it was refused, including all the detail of the fabric of the building and he can fully understand why there is a viability issue and expressed the opinion that until this is resolved with a planning approval, the issue of viability will not go away. Councillor Benney added that when the two applications were submitted, the Council granted the application for six bungalows and the house and allowed demolition on the site. He added that the principle of demolition has been allowed on the site, together with development of six bungalows and a house as permission has been granted and there is a building left at the front which, in his opinion, is a standalone project which is no longer viable. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the building is in a terrible state, the front wall is cracked and the back of the building is just open sheds and he cannot see how this can ever be converted into a house in a viable way and added that as it juts out and is hiding the other two Grade 2 Listed Buildings. He expressed the view that he is concerned that nothing will happen to this building and it will deteriorate further and could be turned back into industrial units, but if a house is built there it will tidy the development up and improve the area and improve road safety and the visibility splay. Councillor Benney stated that there is not the need for more agricultural buildings and the application should be approved as London Road does not need another old farm building left there as it is a nice part of the town and he will not be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the proposal establishes the building line, it is an interesting looking building, it is dirty and has interesting window features and has been altered on one end. He expressed the view that it is a heritage building and he would hate to see it disappear and added that his concern is that if the committee agree that the building should be demolished, it could have a financial impact on the Council, due to possible action that could be taken under the legislation that has been identified. Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, stated that it is possible for a third party to challenge the issue of planning permission or Listed Building Consent and if a third party were to launch a challenge, in his opinion, there may be grounds for doing so in this case, because he cannot see any substantive grounds for members to overturn the presumption in favour of preserving a Listed Building, and if challenged then the Council would have to pay costs and if the Council lost, then they would have to pay the costs of the other party which could be substantial.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she does sympathise with the views of Councillor Benney and the residents of Chatteris, however, given the views of the four heritage bodies, the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework and the legal presumption of the Planning Officers and Conservation Officer, she cannot support the application. She added that if demolition is to be allowed, then the legal path needs to be followed.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is uncomfortable making a decision on the application without seeing inside the building. He added that he has heard the views given regarding the state of the building and, in his opinion, the application should be deferred so that a meeting can take place with the Conservation Officers from both parties and actually looking at the site before making a decision.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he respects the views of Councillor Benney, however, the facts of the application need to be considered. He stated that if the building was never a Coach House why is it called the former Coach House? He added that there are many agricultural buildings which have shown that they can be turned into very desirable barn conversions. Councillor Meekins stated that Councillor Benney had referred to the buildings either side of the application site and had stated that he would fight to preserve them, however, Councillor Meekins stated that surely the application site forms part of the same vista. He added that he is concerned that if the committee vote and the building ends up being demolished, it could prove to be very costly to the Council and also be damaging to the reputation of the Planning Committee and that of the Council and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks in that Committee members cannot determine the application without carrying out an internal inspection of the site. He added that he would like to be provided further detail on the costings that had been quoted and he would like all members of the heritage groups that had spoken to also attend the site, rather than carry out a desk top assessment to gain a better understanding of the condition of the building, as their views and opinions may change.

·         Councillor Skoulding made the point that in the 1920’s there were motor cars in existence not just horse and carriages. He stated that he has been to the yard many years ago and there was no way that a carriage would have been able to access the opening. He stated that the floor was earth, there was no concrete and the building was only one brick thick and that is why the costings are so great and in light of the new energy performance certificate requirements, to make the building more energy efficient, the ceilings would have to come down and new ceilings added. Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that it would be more economical to demolish the building and rebuild it.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the site was originally a farmyard and then became a builder’s yard and the entrance was very narrow, which had caused issues for deliveries. He added that the Town Council have discussed this on many occasions, and he expressed the view that he cannot understand why there are parties who want to retain the building, if they are so passionate about the building then they could consider purchasing the site and bringing it back into use again. Councillor Murphy stated that there are many buildings in Chatteris which need attention, but this is not taking place as they do not have the funds to do so. He added that he appreciates the comments made by the Legal Officer, but he cannot understand why the building is listed because it is a farm building and always has been. Councillor Murphy stated that he will agree with the comment made by Councillor Marks for the committee to undertake a site visit, so that members can fully appreciate the state of the building.

·         Councillor Meekins asked whether the site visit could be carried out virtually and have video footage circulated to all interested parties.

·         Councillor Lynn expressed the view that a virtual inspection will not be sufficient for members to ascertain a full and accurate assessment.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that he appreciates the comments made by Councillor Meekins, but he agrees with Councillor Lynn that the site visit needs to be carried out in person

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that it looks like the application is going to be deferred. He added that the site inspection should only be for members and no other parties should be involved.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she agrees a site visit would be beneficial, but even if members want to agree to the demolition there is a legal path that needs to be followed and members must not lose sight of that.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis that there is legal process to follow, but to begin the process a visit needs to take place to look at the fabric of the building and then the next stage can take place.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis and stated that whatever the condition of the building is the process will still need to be followed. He expressed the opinion that to allow the demolition of the building would show the committee as acting in a perverse way and whatever is seen on a site visit becomes irrelevant because the recommendation will be the same. He added that, whilst he respects the comments of other Councillors, to consider going against the officer’s recommendation would be a mistake and the Council could find the heritage bodies challenging the Council’s decision.

·         Nick Harding stated that the name of the building, the Coach House, is immaterial to the planning considerations when determining the applications. He referred to questions having been asked with regard to the quality of the building and whether it should have been included as a curtilage building and that was a question that the heritage body, who are responsible for the listing of buildings, had looked at when they looked at the listing initially and it would have had regard to the physical layout of the site, the ownership both historic and current and also the use or function both historically and currently. Nick Harding drew members attention to the officer’s report, which refers to the National Planning Policy Framework, where it summarises how the applications should be determined and highlighted to members the national guidance and other key considerations for determination of the application. He added that reference has been made to the other residential development which has been approved in the grounds of the Listed Building and he referred to the case history and the analysis that took place by officers, who found the development to be wholly appropriate in the context of the setting of a Listed Building and there was no harm arising and no conflict of that residential development with planning policy. Nick Harding referred to the application from 2019 which came forward accompanied by a structural report which identified that the roof and rainwater gutters were leaking and he stated that he would hope the owner of the building has addressed those issues to stop the further deterioration of the building.

 

F/YR20/0586/LB

 

A proposal was put forward by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. The proposition failed.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Murphy and AGREED that the application be deferred, to give members the opportunity to carry out a site visit at a time and date to be arranged.

 

F/YR20/0585/F

 

It was proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Lynn and AGREED that the application be deferred.

 

(All members of the committee registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)