Agenda item

EP told Members that this is a full planning and listed building consent application to enlarge the opening at ground floor level, and is at Committee at the request of Councillor Garnham.  The recommendation to refuse is due to concerns about the impact of the work on the listed building.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Diana Jones, agent, in support

There is concern about the harm to the listed building and loss of historic fabric from the original rear wall, and that the proposal will be out of character.  The existing double doors are not the original fenestration, are narrower than the sash windows above, and not in alignment with them.  They were approved in 1999, when the lower ground floor was modified with minimum loss of original fabric.     The applicants have tried to address the officers’ concerns by reducing the width of the proposed door from four panes to three. The LPA approved alterations required when converting three houses in Ashford Road to maisonettes in 1999, involving staircases, fenestrations, ground, upper ground, metal balconies.  The proposed changes at No. 7 are inconsequential, and the conservation officer’s views are therefore disappointing.  This is a single family dwelling, and it is absurd to take issue with minor change which creates a single opening at basement level, preserves the character of the listed building, and is complementary not jarring with original windows.

Member debate:

AC:  would want to do the same himself if he lived in this house.  Considers the proposal eminently sensible, the alterations will only be seen by the occupants, and there is no reason not to permit it.

SW:  is of the same view – this is a very small alteration.  Has heard KR’s table top analogy about the cumulative effects of small alterations to listed buildings, and if the proposed changes were at the front of the building or to be viewed widely, would be very concerned.  However, the door is not centred under the window above and the proposal will make it more balanced and look better aesthetically.  If the officer can make a recommendation as to the type of door, has no worries, and has no issue with widening the opening.  Proposes that the application is permitted.

JW:  also sees nothing to object to here, and agrees with AC and SW.

MS:  agrees with them too.  You would need to be in a helicopter to see this alteration; it will do no harm and will improve the quality of life for the residents.  Supports the move the permit.

EP, in response:

-          to reiterate the issue, officers are principally concerned with the loss of historic fabric and widening of the opening, with no justification regarding public benefit.

KR, in response:

-          is glad to hear that Members are aware of the table top analogy - if the legs of an antique table are removed one by one, you end up with a table top - in respect of small, successive changes to listed buildings.  If the same is applied to an old building, the historic structure is lost and what is left is a series of modern alterations;

-          PPS5 Practice Guide gives advice on the insertion of new elements likely to adversely affect a listed building, the removal of historic fabric, and the need to follow the character of the building.  This application in contrary to PPS5 Practice Guide;

-          in response to SW and AC’s comments that the proposed works won’t be seen from outside, the whole building is listed whether it can be seen or not, it is in a conservation area, and some of the historic fabric will be lost to accommodate a new door.  The proposed door is a contemporary, bi-fold design, bearing no resemblance to the existing door, which is in keeping with the building;

-          these are essentially the issues of concern and which have informed the recommendation to refuse.

BF:  if we allow things to be done to listed buildings a bit at a time, do we need a conservation officer?  If people are allowed to keep chipping away at these properties, we will end up with nothing of any value.  People know what they’re taking on when they buy a listed property in a conservation area, and should stick by the rules, restoring it as near as possible to how it was originally.  Otherwise, what is the point of living in a listed building?  This is the price owners have to pay.  KR is right.

SW:  would be more than happy, if the application is approved, that officers are involved in the design of the replacement doors.  In response to KR’s table top analogy, said Greyfriars in Gloucester looks unaltered from the outside but inside has been subject to considerable alteration but remains a very interesting building with great historical value.  The proposal is a miniscule change for more acceptable living accommodation, not a big thing.  If the applicant wanted to change all the windows to UPVC, that would be another matter. 

AM:  the best way to preserve a historic building is by making sure that people want to live in it.  Can think of listed buildings which have fallen down, because planning issues and constraints have made alterations and improvements unaffordable.  The logical conclusion of what has been said would be no indoor bathrooms in old properties – it is ludicrous.  These buildings cannot be preserved in aspic – this is poor thinking.

JW:  if officer advice and permission is granted, would the building lose its listed status?

PT:  the present doors were only installed in1999 and are a good copy of the original, although is not keen on the little windows at the side.  Can the new doors look like what is there now, but on a folding basis, as a compromise?

LG:  alterations to listed buildings depend very much on the degree of change, exactly as the success or otherwise of applications in conservation areas depends on the degree of change the applicant is trying to make.  Each case must be judged on its merits, and due weight given to the application as it stands.  A proposal for windows at the back will carry less weight even at appeal than one for windows at the front.  In response to BF’s comments, just because someone lives in a listed building, this doesn’t mean it can’t be altered, but a planning application has to be put in and due process has to be followed.  Listed buildings don’t have to stay as they are for ever.

PH:  the proposal is for the current doors to be replaced with sliding patio doors – there is no alternative other than to say yes or no.  Any other recommendations would invalidate the whole application.

GB:  agrees with PH – we are not here to redesign buildings.  Agrees with officers here – the proposal will substantially change the whole aspect of the rear elevation.  The existing doors complement the listed building, and if they are changed, this should not make it look worse.  The doors should be kept to the original design.  Doesn’t see why we should have to consider whether or not the doors improve the residents’ lives – doors open and close, allow egress and ingress – whether bi-folding or traditional, they do the same job.  The proposed doors will not make any change to the use of the building, but will change the look of it.  They will not enhance the listed building.

AC:  agrees with PH – it is not our job to design doors – we have better things to do.  There is a proposal to be accepted or rejected – that is all.

CC:  if SW’s move to approve succeeds, will officers want to add conditions?

EP, in response:

-          a condition about the detailed design would be appropriate, together with the usual time limit condition;

-          to JW, allowing this alteration would not affect the listed status of the building;

-          to PT, the current door and small windows were installed in 1999.  Prior to that, there were casement windows, which were extended downwards but the same width;

-          regarding the design of the doors, agrees that Members need to approve or refuse rather than stipulate what the doors should look like.  This can be dealt with by condition if Members are minded to approve.

KR, in response:

-          theLG’s comment that an appeal inspector would give less weight to work on the back of a listed building, doesn’t agree.  Has experienced a case where the applicant wanted to remove an internal door and section of wall; the application was refused, and at the subsequent appeal, the Inspector said the door and wall were of value and should remain.  Therefore Officers do not consider that, just because this application is concerned with the back of the building, it is any less important than the front.

Vote on SW’s move to permit

6 in support

7 in objection

0 abstentions

REFUSE