Agenda item

Motion submitted by Councillor Mrs Laws regarding Built Environment Conservation in Fenland.

Councillor Mrs Laws presented a motion regarding built environment conservation in Fenland.

 

Councillor Mrs Laws stated: “Full Council notes that members of local councils have responsibility for setting policy, within legal limits, concerning all areas of Council activity, including Conservation. Members, in determining Conservation policy, need to determine an appropriate local balance between preserving what is good from the past as against providing necessary flexibility to address current and future economic and residential needs. A majority of members, in seeking to determine that balance, would like to commission an external partner to provide guidance and recommendations on how the Council can amend current Conservation policy and practice in Fenland to achieve this aspiration within the following scope:

 

1. To provide recommendations as to how we may review the geographical extent of every conservation area in Fenland, including whether each conservation area should continue to be so designated. In respect of each conservation area no such review should be commenced without the prior agreement of the relevant town or parish council. In respect of each review, no change should be implemented without the agreement of the relevant town or parish council. Involvement and consultation with the relevant town or parish council must be integral to this whole process.  

 

2. To provide recommendations as to how each town and parish council could initiate an external professional appraisal of any conservation area within their area, subject to no such appraisal having taken place within the previous five years, and subject further to the parish or town council sharing the cost of any such appraisal equally with Fenland District Council.

 

3. To review and provide recommendations as to how the current approach to the local validation list requirements and materials requirements for listed buildings, conservation areas (and buildings that have a relationship with the setting of these) and non-designated heritage assets may most appropriately be changed given the pro-growth agenda of the Council in the context of challenging property values and the changing dynamic of town centres.  

 

4. With respect to materials requirement in conservation areas and for non-designated heritage assets, Members seek guidance and recommendations as to how the Council can be more flexible than at present in requiring specific building materials for the construction and repair of buildings, specifically, but not exclusively, including recommendations as to how the Council may facilitate, in new build, renovations, improvements and repairs, the use of high quality compatibly designed UPVC windows, and a less onerous specificity in the selection of building materials such as bricks and mortar.

 

5. To provide recommendations as to how the Council can be more flexible than at present in requiring specific building materials for the repair, renovation or improvement of Grade II listed buildings, specifically but not exclusively including the use of high quality compatibly designed UPVC windows, and the selection of building materials such as bricks and mortar.

 

6. To provide recommendations as to how the Council could legally cease planning-related conservation assessments outside conservation areas, except for Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings, and except where any planning application relates to a location immediately adjacent to a listed building or a conservation area.

 

7. To review the draft conservation policies in the emerging local plan and provide recommendations as to how these policies might be drafted to best serve the Council's pro-growth agenda whilst appropriately conserving heritage assets in the District as envisaged in the recently published Planning White Paper.

 

8. To provide recommendations as to how the Council can provide enhanced protection for and preservation of Whittlesey's iconic mud walls.

 

Full Council resolves that an appropriately qualified external person be engaged to consult with members and others as to how the aspirations listed above may be practically, legally and expeditiously implemented.

 

 

Councillor Connor seconded the motion and Councillor Miscandlon opened the Motion for debate. 

 

1.    Councillor Booth said he would probably support this motion but had several questions. Firstly, why do we need a motion as surely this falls within Councillor Mrs Laws’ remit as portfolio holder to look into this type of work to get conservation areas reviewed and then taken to full council for approval. Secondly, what is the situation if the town and parish councils do not have the funds to pay towards a review, particularly if they have already set their budgets. Thirdly, why do we not have a financial figure as to how much this review will cost? 

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws said Councillor Booth is right; conservation falls under her portfolio but members, including some town and parish councillors, have come forward with various ideas regarding conservation. They are not entirely in agreement with the current designated conservation areas so she thought it would be correct to come to full council with this motion to fully involve everyone. She accepted his comment regarding budget setting but to achieve the Coates conservation policy, we did award £600 to bring an up to date conservation policy through as Whittlesey had already achieved an updated proposal. Coates was lagging behind but to bring forward the neighbourhood plan, the council did award this as a contribution. Moving forward we must consider the cost to FDC and the staffing we have, there is current only one dedicated staff member and this would support additional staff that would be needed. The costs are currently being explored with officers and it is unfortunate she cannot give a cost today, but she will bring the cost back to full council.  She said we are not asking parish and town councils to pay the full amount but to provide a contribution. If financially it is not possible for them then that is something that will have to be discussed. Councillor Booth thanked Councillor Mrs Laws.

3.    Councillor Sutton said Councillor Mrs Laws is very passionate about heritage, but he is surprised by parts of the motion and hopes that she has not been led down a road by others that do not share her passion. This could lead us to riding roughshod over the professional advice of officers; he does not feel he can support the motion without knowing the cost. He cannot see why this motion is required but he would like to make a proposal for an amendment to the motion and that is that if we pass the motion, we are saying that the parish and towns have got to pay whether they budget or not. He wants to know how much it will cost but would like to see where they will pay the cost equally, that could be a huge amount of money. If FDC wants to do this then they should not impose the cost on others. He would like the motion to be withdrawn and brought back to the next meeting knowing what the costs will be or to amend the motion and take out the part about the parish and town councils.

4.    Councillor Mrs French said this has been an ongoing issue for years and we have had many discussions and presentations on the matter. She supports Councillor Mrs Laws plans but has her concerns regarding charging town and parish councils on this. They should not have to pay; it is a matter for the district council, and neither is it a political issue. She can give many examples of old properties in conservation areas that need new windows, some of which have received planning permission but the stipulations, such as only being allowed to use wood and not UPVC, means that replacements will not last as long or will deteriorate far more quickly and will need repainting sooner rather than later. Conservation officers should be taking heed of the Buildings at Risk Register and saving our buildings instead of concentrating on double glazed windows. We should not expect town and parish councils to contribute as she does not believe it is their duty to do so.

5.    Councillor Mrs Davis fully supports the motion but would like to see it deferred and brought back to the next meeting because it is difficult to vote when we do not know the costs. Also, this is an FDC policy and if we are going to set policies, then it is not right that parishes and towns must contribute.

6.    Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Mrs French’s point about plastic windows. He said that technology has moved on and the quality now is such that you cannot tell the difference between plastic and wood. He added that he is pleased to hear members raising concerns about shared costs. He cannot support this motion as it stands as we would be committing town and parish councils to have to pay; he would request this motion be withdrawn and brought back with costings. If not, he would like to see reference to the contribution to be taken out of it.

7.    Councillor Lynn said his understanding is that towns and parishes will only be asked to contribute if they require an appraisal, so he does not see why this part of the motion is an issue. He has been approached many times by shopkeepers in and around Wisbech marketplace who are struggling; they are in buildings in desperate need of repair and this needs to be revised. He will therefore be supporting this motion.

8.    Councillor Hoy agreed with Councillor Lynn; she understands the motion to read that if the town and parish council want an appraisal they are being asked to share the cost, if they do not want one, then there will be no cost. 

9.    Councillor Boden said Councillor Sutton had said there was not the capacity within the FDC Planning Department when he was in charge of Planning for things to proceed as far as reviews of conservation areas were concerned. Passing this motion will assist in the workload of the conservation officer in that a lot of the work she does now will no longer need to be done. It does not change the fact that we do not currently have the capacity to enable us to conduct these long overdue policy reviews. This motion will prioritise those parish or town councils which believe that their need for a review is so great that they will find the money to contribute towards the review happening. It will not be happening in-house but we will need someone from outside to do it for us.

10. Councillor Connor thanked Councillor Laws for putting forward a well thought out and balanced motion and agreed with Councillor Boden. He urged members to support this motion. 

11. Councillor Mrs Laws said there is a staffing level to consider, our policies are out of date. There is no question that town or parish councils would be forced to have an appraisal but if they wished to then a contribution would be required. She took on board Councillor Mrs French's comment about the at-risk register, but we have one conservation officer; this will free up some of her time to look at the register and conservation policies.  We have modern materials that are such high quality you cannot tell the difference between that and wood and this will give some flexibility. She stated she would not be withdrawing the motion.

12. Councillor Mrs French thanked Councillor Mrs Laws and stated again that she fully supports the motion but is still concerned about the charge to town and parish councils; there should be more consultation. FDC does have a statutory duty to look at this but we have some beautiful buildings in Fenland, and we do need to start preserving these. She also asked that the appointed consultant, if this is approved, speaks in depth to members of the March Society, a local group who are passionate about conservation and listed buildings for buildings when it comes to reviewing buildings in that particular area, and any other local group.

13. Councillor Mrs Laws said without question every society within the district that has heritage or conservation interests will be included as every town and parish council. Councillor Mrs French thanked Councillor Mrs Laws.

14. Councillor Sutton proposed a motion to remove the part of the motion where town and parish councils would be asked to contribute. Councillor Mrs French said she would not second that proposal but felt that there should be something in the motion to say that town and parish councils would not have to contribute.

15. Councillor Miscandlon recommended that this motion is deferred so that the modified version of Section 2 be brought back to the next meeting of full Council or at a future date. It is important to go through but not in its current form.

16. Councillor Mrs Laws stated she wants the motion to stand as it is

17. Councillor Connor stated that he still wants to second the original motion.

Carol Pilson stated that as Councillor Sutton has recommended an amendment to the motion, it needs to have a seconder and then the amendment could be taken to the vote. 

 

Councillor Sutton proposed an amendment to the motion and clarified that he would like removed the section that says, "and subject further to parish and town council sharing the costs equally with FDC". Councillor Booth seconded the proposed amendment.

 

Members were given an opportunity to debate the amended motion.

 

1.    Councillor Hoy said that she felt Councillor Sutton had misunderstood and that it meant that if, for example, Whittlesey Town Council wants its conservation area appraised then it would merely mean they would share the cost of the appraisal with FDC.  She said she believed he thought it meant that all town and parish councils would contribute to this.  She sympathised with the point that town and parish councils have already set their budgets, however she does not see any other practical way to do this.  She would not be supporting the amendment.

2.    Councillor Boden asked that members oppose this amendment as it is designed to move us forward and will allow us, even without the officer capacity, to start commissioning external sources to provide us with conservation reviews without us having to make cuts elsewhere.

3.    Councillor Booth said his problem with the motion as it stands is that effectively it allows parishes with large reserves to "jump the queue", even if they have had a more recent conservation appraisal.

4.    Councillor Hoy said that it appears that some parishes that have not been asking for a review will now want FDC to undertake a lot of work at great cost that will benefit their area but without paying and this does not seem right, particularly when they have not previously been wanting a review.

5.    Councillor Cornwell said he has no problem with asking for any of the town or parishes for a contribution, which can be adjusted accordingly to affordability and the size of the job. However, his issue is with the word "equally" and an expectation to meet the costs equally; some parishes may not have the 50% to pay but it is perfectly fair to expect a contribution. 

6.    Councillor Booth responded to Councillor Hoy's comment and said that Parson Drove has been asking for a review since he joined the Council. This has never been delivered, despite having been told it they were next on the list; he understands about officer capacity but the issue remains around cost to the smaller parishes; he has no doubt they would be willing to make a contribution but if a consultant is going to cost up to £15,000, then he agreed with Councillor Cornwell and this is going to penalise the smaller parishes.

7.    Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Hoy's first comment and stated he had not misunderstood the point. He understands that the expectation was for an individual town or parish council to share the cost with FDC and not to split it amongst them all. Also, he could recall when Councillor Booth asked for a review for Parson Drove and disputed that town and parish councils would be wanting reviews undertaken when they had not previously been asking for them. He agreed that reviews could cost thousands of pounds but paying half the cost could easily be more than a town or parish council precept. He is still of the opinion that it is wrong to expect the costs to be shared equally with FDC but that it would be better to provide a contribution.

8.    Councillor Count said it is not appropriate for the county council to decide conservation policy for FDC and it is not appropriate for FDC to dictate to towns and parishes what should happen in their towns and villages. It is up to those areas to stand up for themselves. If their precepts are insufficient or not large enough, it is up to them to decide what is important for their residents. If they feel this is an important matter for their residents, and FDC is meeting them halfway then that is good enough; FDC should not have to cover the entire cost. Therefore, he cannot support this amendment.

9.    Councillor Mrs French said that ultimately this motion is about Councillor Mrs Laws requesting agreement to be able to engage someone to look at the issue of conservation. They would then come back with a report and an idea of costing and at this stage we would go back to the towns and parishes and say if they want something done, this is how much it is going to cost.

10.Councillor Cornwell agreed with Councillor Mrs French; we are not committing to anything at this stage, only to employing someone to make recommendations to us.

11.Councillor Hay said it is long overdue to have someone look at conservation within Fenland. A review of the conservation area in somewhere like Parson Drove is going to cost far less than somewhere like Wisbech so the argument that the smaller parishes are going to share an unfair burden does not stand.  They will decide whether they want to have a review in their area, and they will be given some idea of the cost to help them with their decision. The original motion is perfectly reasonable.

 

Councillor Mrs Laws was given the opportunity to sum up. She said that both Councillors Mrs French and Cornwell had already concluded correctly that her motion is a recommendation and will come back to Council, and she will not be altering it.

 

A vote was taken on the amendment to the motion proposed by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Booth. The amended motion failed.

 

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws and seconded by Councillor Connor. The motion was approved.

 

(Councillors Wicks declared an interest and took no part in the debate or vote on this item).

 

(Councillor John Clarke declared an interest by virtue of the fact he lives in a listed property in a conservation area, he also took part in Councillor Law’s working group and took no part in the debate or vote on this item).

 

(Councillor Skoulding declared an interest by virtue of the fact he owns some properties in March town centre, which is in the conservation area and took no part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

(Councillor Benney declared an interest by virtue of owning properties in Chatteris conservation area and took no part in the debate or vote on this item).

 

(Councillor Sam Clarke declared an interest by virtue of the fact she has a family member in a listed building property and took no part in the debate or vote on this item). 

 

(Councillor Purser declared an interest by virtue of the fact he owns some property in March town centre that may be in the conservation area).

 

(Councillor Maul declared an interest by virtue of the fact he has a property in the Wisbech conservation area).