Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/22/036

Application for listed building consent - External alterations to include; a. single storey extension to north wing to include partial demolition of rear wall and window; b. external door and window alterations to include replacement and reinstatement of window and doors to rear elevation; c. provision of gratings to basement window areas; Internal alterations involving remodelling of internal layouts to include; demolition of staircase to main entrance hall to allow for large dining area; b. partial relocation of modified staircase from main entrance hall to new stairwell within existing laundry room; c. demolition of internal partition between existing bedroom one and two; d. provision of new attic staircase; e. upgrading of thermal elements to existing attic accommodation together with provision of shower room; f. upgrading of internal doors to half hour fire resistance; g. renewal of services to include electrics, heating and plumbing together with other modifications

(Councillors Mike Chester and Andrew Smith declared non-pecuniary interests in this item in light of the fact that they were members of the Parochial Church Councils of their Parish Churches which came under the St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocese as did the application site, they therefore asked that this be noted in the interests of transparency.

Councillor Peter Stevens also declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had been invited to view the building in question prior to the scheduled site visit, he therefore asked that this also be noted in the interests of transparency.)

Application for listed building consent - External alterations to include; a. single storey extension to north wing to include partial demolition of rear wall and window; b. external door and window alterations to include replacement and reinstatement of window and doors to rear elevation; c. provision of gratings to basement window areas; Internal alterations involving remodelling of internal layouts to include; demolition of staircase to main entrance hall to allow for large dining area; b. partial relocation of modified staircase from main entrance hall to new stairwell within existing laundry room; c. demolition of internal partition between existing bedroom one and two; d. provision of new attic staircase; e. upgrading of thermal elements to existing attic accommodation together with provision of shower room; f. upgrading of internal doors to half hour fire resistance; g. renewal of services to include electrics, heating and plumbing together with other modifications

This application, as well as a Full Planning Application (DC/22/0364/FUL) for related works was considered at the Development Control Committee meeting on 6 July 2022, having been referred there by the Delegation Panel, and a Member site visit was undertaken on 4 July 2022.

Officers recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 93 of Report No DEV/WS/22/024 and also recommended that the application for Listed Building Consent be refused for the reason outlined in Paragraph 94 of that report. This latter recommendation was in conflict with the view of Bury St Edmunds Town Council who supported the proposals.

Members at the July Committee meeting resolved to grant planning permission for the Full Planning Application (DC/22/0364/FUL), in line with the Officer recommendation, subject to the conditions. This decision has subsequently been issued.

However, Members also resolved that they were ‘minded to’ approve the Listed Building Consent, contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. The Decision Making Protocol was subsequently invoked which required a Risk Assessment report to be prepared for further consideration by the Committee.

Members resolved that they were minded to approve the application because they considered that the level of public benefit from the proposed works would outweigh the degree of harm caused, due in part to the staircase not being an original feature of the building.

The purpose of the further report before the Committee (No DEV/WS/22/036) was to provide a more detailed analysis of the public benefit that could be afforded to the Listed Building Consent proposal, as well as a Risk Assessment (in accordance with the Decision-Making Protocol) which set out the potential risks that could arise should Listed Building Consent be approved.

Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be refused, for the reason set out in Paragraph 33 of the report.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary ‘late papers’ issued in respect of the application and the Officer also showed videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Councillor Robert Everitt (Adjacent Ward Member: Minden, speaking on behalf of the Ward Members for Abbeygate) spoke in support of the application

                   The Very Reverend Joe Hawes (applicant) spoke in support of the application

                   (Councillor Everitt was not in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on his behalf.)

Considerable debate took place on the application. Whilst some Members recognised the significant weight that had to be attributed to Historic England’s objection others remarked on the need for Listed Buildings to evolve and serve a useful purpose within communities.

The Council’s Senior Conservation Officer was in attendance and was invited by the Chair to further elaborate on her reasons for recommending refusal.

In response to questions posed, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that it would not be reasonable or enforceable to condition the application to ensure that the public benefits of the scheme had to remain in perpetuity.

Councillor Peter Stevens spoke in support of the application and proposed that it be approved, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

However, upon being put to the vote and with the vote being 5 voting for the motion and 11 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

Councillor Jason Crooks then proposed that the application be refused as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

Upon being put to the vote and with 12 voting for the motion, 3 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Listed Building Consent be REFUSED for the following reason:

When considering the impact of a proposed development on significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more important the asset the greater the weight should be, this is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Any harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification, in accordance with paragraphs 199-202 of the NPPF, policy DM15 of the JDMPD and section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The staircase removal would cause harm to the significance of the building and especially the understanding of its adaptation from use as an Almshouse to Vicarage, which has become a large part of its significance. This harm would not be mitigated by its partial reuse within the building, the staircase would be removed from its original setting and its character as a piece of architecture designed to impress would be lost. The grandeur of the staircase albeit it in a modified form would also appear inappropriate to its proposed back of house location.

The level of public benefit from the proposed works, resulting in the proposed use of a hospitality space, is not considered to be of such significance that it would outweigh the degree of harm caused to the highest grade listed building.

Given the importance of partition wall between bedroom one and two and the effect of its partial removal on the building’s significance, insufficient justification has been provided for its removal, contrary to paragraph 200 of the NPPF.

The proposal does not therefore meet the provisions of policy DM15 or paragraphs 199-202 of the NPPF, and there are no material considerations, including the limited public benefit for the use of the hall, that outweigh this very significant conflict with the policy.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a short comfort break.)