Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of existing stable block and replacement with new stable block and associated outbuildings; felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL and 17/00049/LBC. Resubmission of application reference 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

60.5          This application was for the proposed demolition of an existing stable block and replacement with a new stable block and associated outbuildings and felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL and 17/00049/LBC; resubmission of applications 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Monday 16 March 2020.

60.6          The Planning Officer advised that this was one of two applications in respect of Dixton Manor and sought permission to demolish a curtilage listed building and replace it with a modern range.  The main matter to be addressed was the impact on the historic environment which, in this instance, comprised two key designated heritage assets – the curtilage stable block which was proposed to be demolished and the Manor itself.  The loss of the curtilage listed stable block would result in substantial harm to that asset, and less than substantial harm to the setting of the Manor, as such, its loss required clear and convincing justification.  The only perceived justification put forward related to the economic benefit to the applicant who suggested it would be more cost effective for them to demolish the stable rather than refurbish it; this had been assessed and was considered to be an inadequate justification for the harm.  The Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England maintained strong objections to the scheme and it was therefore recommended for refusal.

60.7          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that he had purchased the Manor five years ago when it had been in a very poor state of repair having already had extensive and inappropriate alterations carried out.  He had been keen to restore the Manor to its former glory in keeping with its history and completion of the courtyard was the next piece of the jigsaw.  The application sought to remove the existing stable block, which had been altered to a point where very little heritage remained and was structurally unsound, as evidenced by the structural survey, so, despite his best intentions, could not be repaired and retained.  The application was also accompanied by a detailed heritage assessment which fully supported the proposal.  The applicant explained that he genuinely loved the house and had put a huge amount of work into its restoration.  He had explored other options but the proposal put forward was the correct solution under the circumstances and he hoped the Committee would take this into consideration in making its decision.

60.8          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis that the primary point of the listing was in respect of the Manor itself and the proposal was part of bringing it back to its former grandeur rather than detracting from it and was justified in that context.  The proposer of the motion felt that it had been clear from the Planning Committee Site Visit that the existing structure was unsound and there had been a lot of movement in the existing gable ends with changes made over the years not in keeping with its heritage.  Having read the Officer report and listened to the applicant, he fully supported the proposal and the attempt to reinstate the building.  The seconder of the motion agreed that the vibrant courtyard no longer existed and the applicant’s proposal would restore the status that it once had so that people driving along the road from Gretton to Gotherington would be able to look across and see a magnificent building that had been properly and caringly designed.  In his view, bringing the property back to its former glory was the most important consideration.  The Council’s Conservation Officer disagreed with these sentiments, as had Historic England; the existing stable block was a historic building which was remnant of the original courtyard and still retained a significant amount of historic fabric such as the Cotswold stone roof, stone gables and brick walls.  His understanding was not that the structural engineer had stated that it was unstable, rather that it was potentially unstable if converted due to the soil against the rear wall which was not designed to take that weight.  He advised Members that they should consider the importance of the building in the wider context of the Grade II* listed building and remember that, once destroyed, the historical remnant would disappear forever so they should must assess the relative value of that against the proposal.  The applicant’s justification for demolition was to provide larger stable blocks and boxes for horses which was fair but could be accommodated in the new building that had already been permitted without demolition of the existing building. 

60.9           A Member queried whether it was possible to condition a permission to ensure the gable end was rebuilt as it was currently so that it would look exactly the same.  In response, the Council’s Conservation Officer explained that once demolished the context would be lost and using salvaged materials would not preserve the historical fabric.  The building had been constructed in a pre-mechanical age by local craftsmen and that could not be recreated; whilst it could be rebuilt, it would not be the same building.  The proposer of the motion accepted what the Conservation Officer was saying; however, the courtyard was a small part of a larger quadrangle which was almost all gone already and, in the longer term, he felt that replacing the building would be a positive rather than a negative.  In response to a Member query, the Planning Officer confirmed there was already planning permission in place which would retain the existing outbuilding whilst allowing the construction of the courtyard.  On that basis, the Member indicated that she could not support the proposal to permit the application and was of the view that the building should remain and be incorporated as part of the new courtyard in accordance with the extant planning permission.  This opinion was shared by another Member who felt that heritage was rapidly disappearing and should be preserved at every opportunity.  Another Member expressed the view that the purpose of listed buildings was to preserve something which had a future as opposed to something which would collapse if left alone, as in this instance.  He felt that a rebuild which was sympathetic to the context of the original building contributed positively to the landscape and was functional would be far preferable to allowing the building to continue to deteriorate and he was supportive of the proposal.  The Technical Planning Manager understood the debate but stressed that it was very important to understand the decision-making context and local planning authority’s statutory duty under the Listed Buildings Act and the considerable weight to be given to preserving and enhancing historic buildings.  There must be significant public benefits to outweigh any harm to the listed buildings and the Council’s expert and Historic England both objected to the application on that very basis.  The benefits of the application were very limited and the proposal was largely based on the applicant’s personal preferences; whilst he could understand the reasons for that, a judgement must be made as to whether the benefits of the proposal constituted the public benefit that was needed to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the listed asset.

60.10         A Member reiterated her view that all listed buildings needed maintenance but that should be for the benefit of future generations and she strongly objected to the demolition of the building.  Another Member indicated that she had been on the Planning Committee Site Visit and did not consider it an attractive building, certainly not of the standard of Tewkesbury Abbey or other similar historic buildings. 

60.11         The Chair sought clarification as to the conditions that should be included if Members were minded to permit the application, particularly in terms of the gable end being rebuilt to appear as similar to the existing as possible.  A Member noted that the new building would be wider than the existing and, on that basis, questioned how the gable end could be constructed to look the same.  The Chair indicated that it would be impossible for it to be identical but could be constructed in a way to look the same so the historical context was not completely lost.  The Technical Planning Manager drew attention to the elevations on the plan at Page No. 76 of the Officer report which appeared to show that it would be very different in terms of proportions.  He recommended the inclusion of conditions in relation to; recording of the historic asset; materials; window and door design and materials; and boards and fascias.  A Member hoped that the top of the gable could be retained so that the only difference would be a slight change in angle; however, the Chair pointed out that the pitch of the roof was different with the original roof being far more gothic in aspect than that proposed so he was unsure if this could be addressed.  Another Member indicated that the plan appeared to show a very large chimney and clarification was provided that the chimney was within another element of the proposal and not within the stable block.

60.12        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED subject to conditions in relation to recording of the historic asset; materials; window and door design and materials; and boards and fascias.