Download Report

Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
REPORT SUMMARY
REFERENCE NO – N/A
ADDRESS
Former Cranbrook Engineering Works / Hospice in the Weald, Stone Street,
Cranbrook, Kent. TN17 3HB
REPORT FOR INFORMATION: To note the service of a Building Preservation Notice
SUMMARY
-
An Interim Report by Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd as part of application to
discharge condition 21 on permission 09/03349/FULMJ has identified the existence of:
-
A.
a mid to late C16 building almost completely intact
-
B.
an attached early C19 (1835 Regency) Assembly Hall
-
C.
remains of a probable C18th outbuilding
-
D.
c1873 a billiard room
-
E.
an apparent early C19 stable block attached to the C16th building.
-
(See site location plan at Appendix 4 for building identification)
-
The buildings enjoyed little protection under planning legislation. Conservation Area
Consent was granted in 12/05/2010 to demolish them and replace them with a mixed
use development. At the time consent was granted the Local Planning Authority (LPA)
was not aware of the historic significance of the buildings on the site, hence the
requirement for the submission of details.
-
On the basis of the recently received information it appears to the Council that the
buildings, are currently not listed, are nevertheless of special architectural or historic
interest, and are in danger of being demolished or altered in such a way as to affect its
character as buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
-
Conservation Area Consent application 10/01073/CAC remains live until 04.05.2015.
The submission of applications to discharge the conditions on this extant permission
show an intent to implement demolition
-
Whilst the buildings could have been demolished without the discharge of conditions
this would have been in breach of planning control, but not a criminal offence. Had this
occurred an enforcement notice could be served although this would not be practicable
given 1) much of the potentially irreplaceable historic fabric would have been lost and 2)
the materials may potentially have been removed from the site. There would ultimately
be little the LPA could do to require their restoration.
-
In two separate conversations between officers and the site agents it became clear that
the intent was to demolish at the earliest possible occasion.
-
Phone conversation between Ruth Chambers and Site Agent week of 02/03/2015: Site
agent stated that a date of demolition planned to be the 9th March but that he was willing
to delay the start date until 23 March. Also mentioned in the conversation was the fact
that the Agents were taking further legal advice regarding the implications of
commencing demolition in breach of outstanding conditions on the 2010 CAC and the
2010 Planning Permission.
-
Conversation between Mark Stephenson and Site Agent on site on 10/03/2015: Site
agent indicated that he was only waiting for a bat license from English Nature before
commencing the demolition and that could be through in the next week or two
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The issuance of a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) is not a matter that is specifically
delegated to the Head of Planning Services under the officer scheme of delegation in the
Council’s Constitution. Never the less , given the current extant conservation area consent, and
the indicated imminent desire to demolish it was considered necessary to seek to immediately
protect the building to allow for further investigation into its historic significance and thus a BPN
has been served. The Head of Planning Services as a defined Chief Officer has power to take
urgent action under general provisions included within the scheme of delegation, provided the
matter is reported to the next planning committee for information.
This report is therefore for information purposes in accordance with the requirements of the
constitution.
WARD Benenden and
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Cranbrook
Cranbrook
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
App No
Proposal
Decision
Date
09/01437/FULMJ
Redevelopment to create mixed use
Residential / Retail and Office space
Approved
Determined
13.08.2009
09/01439/CAC
Demolition of existing buildings
Approved
Determined
30.06.2009
09/03349/FULMJ
Redevelopment to create mixed use
Residential / Retail and Office space
Approved
Determined
28.01.2010
10/01073/CAC
Demolition of existing buildings
Approved
Determined
12.05.2010
14/504852/FULL
Extension of Time 09/03349/FULMJ
10/01073/CAC
Pending
Various
applications
Discharge of Conditions related to
09/03349/FULMJ 10/01073/CAC
Pending
Various
MAIN REPORT
1.0
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
1.01
The former Cranbrook Engineering Works/Hospice in the Weald outlet is located on
Stone Street, Cranbrook, Kent. The site occupies a composite plot of irregular
outline, comprising about 0.22ha south of the junction between High Street and
Stone Street in Cranbrook town centre.
1.02
Located within the site are a range of standing buildings. Of particular interest for the
purpose of this report are the buildings that were associated with the White Horse
Inn, later the Bull, whose principle buildings were demolished in 1937. The extent of
these buildings is shown on the attached map.
2.0
BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICES
2.01
Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) may serve a BPN on the owner and occupier of a
building which is not listed, but which they consider is of special architectural or
historic interest and is in danger of demolition or of alteration in such a way as to
affect its character as a building of such interest (S.3 (1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
2.02
At the time a BPN is served, an application to list the building must be made to
English Heritage. (This has been done – see section 5.01 below).
2.03
A BPN takes effect immediately when it is served on the owner and occupier.
2.04
A BPN protects the building for a maximum of 6 months until either the Secretary of
State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport lists the building or informs the LPA that
he does not intend to do so. Whilst the BPN is in place, the building is subject to the
same protection as a listed building and any works to the building will require listed
building consent. If works are carried out without listed building consent the LPA can
take enforcement action or institute criminal proceedings.
2.05
If the decision is taken not to list the building, the LPA may not serve another BPN in
respect of that building within 12 months of the decision. This does not apply if the
Secretary of State takes no action in the six-month period, in which case the LPA can
issue a further BPN.
2.06
If the service of the BPN is not followed by the building being listed the LPA is
potentially liable to pay compensation. A claim for compensation must be submitted
within 6 month of service of the BPN. This issue is explored further in section 7 of this
report.
2.07
There is no statutory right of appeal against a BPN or a decision to list a building, but
an informal review can be sought from the Secretary of within 28 days of the date of
the BPN/decision. If an application for a listed building consent is refused or a Listed
Building Enforcement Notice is served by the LPA, the appellant can include as a
ground of appeal a claim that the building is not of special architectural or historic
interest and ought to be removed from any list compiled or approved by the
Secretary of State.
2.08
If the BPN lapses then so do any listed building consents granted during the period of
the Notice. However, the fact that the BPN has lapsed is not relevant to the issue of
whether an offence was committed for failing to apply for listed building consent
when the BPN was in force.
2.09
LPAs are encouraged to use BPNs to protect important buildings of value to society
from being irretrievably lost or damaged without the authority first being able to
consider its merits and any proposals for development. The process for ‘spot-listing’
a building by English Heritage can often take longer than the time taken to issue a
BPN.
3.0
PLANNING CONSTRAINTS
3.01
There is a current Conservation Area Consent for demolition of the existing buildings
on the site. There is a planning permission (lapsed) for development of the site for
mixed office, retail and residential units. There is a current application for the
extension of time on this planning application which was received prior to the date of
lapse.
3.02
If the buildings are confirmed for listed building status, the extant and historic
schemes would need to be amended to retain those structures listed.
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
3.03
The proposals previously approved have been reviewed and the informal view is that
the scheme could be adapted to provide similar provision while restoring and reusing the identified historic buildings for a useful purpose.
3.04
It should be noted that the listing of these buildings could be deemed to provide
additional justification for the number of residential units proposed on the adjacent
Wilkes Field site, currently the subject of an application submitted by the same
applicant.
4.0
POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
English Heritage guidance relating to Building Preservation Notices.
Section 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The site occupied by the buildings lies within an area identified for future
development in the emerging Submission Site Allocations DPD. Were the buildings
to be listed, there would need to be an additional consideration of the historic nature
of the site when considering the future layout under its allocation. Such modification
to the emerging policy can be recommended to the Secretary of State’s appointed
inspector.
5.0
5.01
5.02
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage
Have advised English Heritage on 11/03/2015 of the LPA’s intent to serve a BPN on
the property. An application to list the buildings has been made to English Heritage
12/03/2015.
KCC Senior Archaeological Officer
(10/03/2015): The (KCCSAO) has considered the recently submitted historic
buildings assessment report by Canterbury Archaeological Trust, and supplied follow
up comments below.
5.03
The (KCCSAO) has noted that ‘CAT have observed probable surviving remnants of
medieval structures as well as probable remains of the late 16th century range.
Clearly there is a complex group of buildings here which remarkably include medieval
building remains. This could be a rare survival and could be of considerable
significance’.
5.04
The (KCCSAO) noted that ’part of the programme of archaeological works should
include evaluation trenches and test pits but we perhaps need to more fully
understand the location of the medieval and 16th century remains before these works
proceed.
5.05
TWBC Legal Services
Legal advice has been taken on this matter particularly regarding the use of urgent
powers under the terms of the Council’s Constitution.
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
6.0
APPRAISAL
6.01
The Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd have produced an Interim Report on the
standing buildings within the site as required by Condition 21 of approved application
09/03349/FULMJ.
6.02
This document has highlighted the existence of a substantially complete late 16th
century range which incorporates remnants, most likely of some medieval outbuilding
along the western boundary of the plot, surviving in the form of sandstone footings in
the South-East corner of this 16th century range. The structure was internally
compartmentalised, probably for residential use, in the early to mid 18th century.
These alterations themselves are of historic significance and have left the original
structure of the 16th Century building primarily intact. Possible uses appear to be
industry or storage.
6.03
The Interim Report goes into significant detail regarding this early structure and is
attached to the rear of this committee report.
6.04
The Interim Report goes on to discuss a range of 18th and 19th century buildings
which are all intimately associated with and attached by varying degrees to this early
structure. These include:




Probable remains of 18th Century outbuilding incorporated into later buildings
1834-35 ‘Assembly Room’
Early 19th Century Stable
1873 ‘Billiard Room’ with raised platform for viewing and pyramid roof and
lantern light
6.05
Of these, the construction of the Assembly Room caused some damage to the 16th
Century building including, across two bays, the loss of approximately 1m of existing
wall and the rafters below purlin height. While this intersection of the two buildings
has caused some loss this is limited and the complete form of the 16th Century
building can clearly be discerned. The intersection also clearly shows the continued
development of the back land for social community use and the continued relevance
of the 16th Century building within the context of the use of the site.
6.06
Annex 2 to the NPPF defines a Heritage Asset as:
A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of
significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage
interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by
the LPA (including local listing).
6.07
Para 135 of the NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of a
non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining an
application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated
heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the
scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
6.08
At present the buildings subject to this report are not listed or locally listed.
Nevertheless, they are considered to have a degree of significance for the reasons
outlined in paras 6.01 - 6.05.
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
6.09
Whilst planning application 09/03349/FULMJ has passed the five year period to
commence development a submission for extension of time was submitted prior to
the end of this 5 year period. Whilst the application for extension of time is not before
Members and is due to be determined under delegated powers, its submission
represents a threat to the building. At present, with the exception of the potential
heritage considerations, there are not considered to be any material planning
reasons why permission should not be granted as there is no significant conflict with
the relevant criteria within the NPPF, the NPPG and the Development Plan
6.10
Conservation Area Consent application 10/01073/CAC remains live until 04.05.2015.
The submission of applications to discharge the conditions on this extant permission
show an intent to implement demolition.
6.11
The buildings could be demolished without the discharge of conditions , it would be in
breach of planning control, but not a criminal offence. The next logical step would be
to consider issuing an Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach. This would require
the building to be re-constructed. However this is not likely to be practicable given 1)
much of the potentially irreplaceable historic fabric would have been lost and 2) the
materials may potentially have been removed from the site. There would ultimately
be little the LPA could do to require its restoration.
6.12
In two separate conversations between officers and the site agents it became clear
that the intent was to demolish at the earliest possible occasion
6.13
Phone conversation between Ruth Chambers and Site Agent week of 02/03/2015:
Site agent stated that a date of demolition planned to be the 9th March but that he
was willing to delay the start date until 23 March. Also mentioned in the conversation
was the fact that the Agents were taking further legal advice regarding the
implications of commencing demolition in breach of outstanding conditions on the
2010 CAC and the 2010 Planning Permission
6.14
Conversation between Mark Stephenson and Site Agent on site on 10/03/2015: Site
agent indicated that he was only waiting for a bat license from English Nature before
commencing the demolition and that could be through in the next week or two.
6.15
The effect of issuing this Notice is that a new Listed Building Consent application is
needed to allow demolition of the heritage asset which is protected by the BPN.
6.16
Thus it is considered the criteria set out at Para 2.01 for issuing a BPN have been
met.
7.0
Potential for compensation claim
7.01
Section 29 of Part 1 Chapter 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 provides that compensation is only relevant if the BPN ceases to
have effect without the building being listed by the Secretary of State.
7.02
Any person with an interest in the property at the time the BPN is served is entitled to
claim compensation in respect of any loss or damage that is directly attributable to
the effect of the BPN. It should be noted that there is no right to compensation for the
loss of redevelopment potential.
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
7.03
This will include, but is not limited to, a sum payable in respect of any breach of
contract caused by the necessity of discontinuing or countermanding (cancelling) any
works to the building on account of the BPN being in force. In this particular case,
given the pending extension of time on the lapsed application, it is expected that the
only direct claim could be in relation to any contract made between the building
owner and any third parties in relation to its demolition. As the application to demolish
the building is pending undischarged conditions, it can be argued it would have been
premature for the building owner to enter in to any such contracts at this stage.
7.04
It should be remembered that there is no absolute right to compensation; it only
applies following a successful claim and a claim can only be made if the building is
not listed by the Secretary of State. If the LPA can justify and defend their reasoning
for the issue of a BPN this would significantly reduce the risk of a potentially
successful claim.
8.0
Human Rights Considerations
8.01
Human Rights Issues have been taken in to account especially Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to enjoy property) relevant to this matter. It is considered the
assessment and considerations in this report represent an appropriate balance
between the rights of the land owner and the wider public interest in protecting
buildings which are considered to be of special architectural or historic interest, which
are threatened with demolition.
9.0
CONCLUSION
9.01
The LPA needed to balance the risk of permanently losing the buildings against the
potential risk of an award of compensation and the deliverability of the development
proposed for the site. It was evident that there was indeed a threat to the existence of
the buildings. As a planning application has been received which proposes the
demolition of the existing buildings, it was considered in danger of demolition in such
a way as to affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic
interest, such that the buildings could have been permanently lost.
9.02
The LPA has carried out a assessment of the historic value of the buildings (including
a site visit and assessment of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust Interim Report).
The risk of losing these heritage assets was, in this instance and having particular
regard to these buildings, considered to outweigh the risk of a liability to pay
compensation to the owner that a BPN attracts. It is considered that the historic
buildings would not totally preclude redevelopment of the site but that alterations as
to site layout and use would need to be considered in any subsequent planning
proposals.
9.03
It was considered appropriate to request that the Secretary of State includes the
buildings in a list compiled or approved under section 1 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 – i.e. “lists” the buildings. It was
therefore considered appropriate to serve a BPN in order to temporarily list the
buildings.
9.04
Accordingly, Officers have drafted and served a BPN.
9.05
At the same time as serving the Notice officers have advised the Secretary of State
that such a notice has been served (via English Heritage) and requested that the
buildings are “listed”.
Planning Committee Report
25 March 2015
10.0
RECOMMENDATION –
To note the issue of a Building Preservation Notice for buildings A, B, C, D, and E identified
on the Location Plan in Appendix 1
Appendices
Appendix A Signed Building Preservation Notice with Location Plan
Appendix B Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd, Interim Report Jan 2015, Former
Cranbrook Engineer Works, Cranbrook, Kent
Appendix C Delegated Report to Head of Planning
Appendix D Site location plan with buildings identified