Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the first application of the evening, application number 141128 to demolish existing main building and replace with 1no. dwelling including landscaping, ancillary works and installation of solar panels to existing garage on land adj 19 Brook Street Hemswell Gainsborough. He stated there was one registered speaker and invited the Planning Officer to provide any updates to the Committee. She stated that, since the report had been published, following the urgent works notice which was served on 17 February 2021, Officers visited the site on 2 March to inspect the works. The new propping and bracing installed was all robust and suitable for purpose. The south-west corner had collapsed further since the last inspection and was in an unstable and dangerous state. It was agreed with the owner on site that it should be carefully dismantled, to around waist height, to remove the risk to the public and remaining fabric. It was also agreed that an additional prop should be installed overhanging the south-west masonry, at eaves level, as near vertical as possible to avoid disturbing the propping already in place. Given its condition at the time of the original inspection, the loss of stone to the south-west corner was not entirely unexpected. The building is still entirely repairable as concluded in the report. Following the presentation of the application from the Officer, the Chairman invited the registered speaker, Mr Paul Morris to address the Committee. He explained there were slides to be shown during his time and he made the following statement.

“Good evening Planning Committee please allow me to introduce himself. I'm Paul Morris, son of one of the applicants, and the former Local Authority Town Planner and Head of Town Planning for the London 2012 infrastructure. I am addressing you this evening to seek your support for sustainable development, which is in full accordance with the recently drafted Hemswell Neighbourhood Plan and the West Lindsey Local Plan, which agrees the site is suitable for one family.  

This is the applicant’s proposal that we feel brings added value to the Hemswell Conservation Area by revitalising 17b Brook Street. Mr and Mrs Morris bought the plot with the full intention of carrying out the 2004 approved scheme. However on the advice of West Lindsey building control to take it down, they sought structural engineering expertise which confirmed the building is structurally unstable with serious health and safety issues associated with any attempt to convert. Unfortunately the 2006 structural report which was shared with West Lindsey was not contained in the map land sale pack, nor was this available on your website and was only brought to our attention during the recent parish council meeting. Had the applicants been aware of this, it's very, very likely they would not have purchased the site.

As you'll see, despite this being as a cherished building, most of the character reflecting its former life as the old Forge has already been demolished by previous owners. This includes the Shoe House, which had the same level of building of interest protection, the lowest level of protection available as per the 1985 Conservation Area appraisal, yet has been satisfactory replaced with the benefit of full plan mission as an attached double garage. We have three independent structural surveys stating 17b Brook Street is in a precarious state and as Committee are aware, the previous Planning Officer who agreed the West Gable was “shot” (their quote) in 2006, so none of the issues we're raising today are new and none of them can be attributed to Mr and Mrs Morris. As Planning Committee Members previously agreed, if this was a significant building, the council should have been looking at it, yet it has been allowed to fall into ruin. As one Member said last time, this is a travesty.

The applicants were asked by a Planning Committee to consider whether the front wall of the building could be retained and engaged the heritage specialist consultant and a structural engineer to consider alternatives in October 2020. Unfortunately the conclusion of the survey is the same: the front wall is in a seriously perilous condition as is the remainder of the structure. We’re disappointed you, as Planning Committee, had not been asked to undertake a site visit to assess the poor state of the building. You would undoubtedly conclude from the health and safety perspective, any attempt to retain the building, the front ball in particular may result in liable damages to people or property.

Thank you to the case officer for sharing some recent photos so I don't need to go through these. All I will say is if you notice on the next door neighbour there's large solar panels on the roof. Hemswell Conservation Area is a place to propose sustainability. Our proposal is much more sustainable and reduce carbon emissions, versus any attempt at a conversion.

This is the applicant’s proposal and you can see it's almost identical in design to the existing building almost on the same footprint. There is clear boundary delineation as suggested by national building design guides, and the next door neighbour who's requested this. Through careful dismantling existing material from the building would be reused to develop a 15% larger building. This aligns with the new garage, which is 50% larger than the demolished Shoe House.

This slide is to demonstrate the claims we've made in this presentation today are all factual, they all exist it's all here if you need to read it, please feel free.

The attached garage was built in 2005. A 2018 character assessment said it's a unique and charming vernacular structure, well if they think it's okay why is our proposal not okay? Ours will be vernacular in nature, it will mirror that of the newly constructed building, and therefore from the street perspective we don't agree that the proposal negatively impacts on the conservation area.

If Planning Committee agree that the site is suitable for one residential home they have to accept the best way for 17b Brook Street to add value to the conservation area, the building is no longer economical, safe nor sustainable to retain. The applicant simply cannot convert the existing building due to the health and safety liabilities and costs associated and we doubt anyone could now, given the state of the building. So if you choose to prove this scheme tonight. I will look forward to bringing my children to the Hemswell Conservation Area in time for my parents retirement. Please remember the applicants, if they hadn't bought this site these issues would remain and 17b would be left to further deteriorate. Throughout the process the applicants have been collaborative within the community, they've engaged professional advice for these proposals and on their behalf, I thank you for your time.”

The Chairman thanked Mr Morris for his time and invited any further comment from Planning Officer. The Development Management Team Leader explained that Officers had specified that an assessing engineer needed to have the speciality knowledge relevant to the building. One had been appointed, he had been to the site, read previous reports and supporting information, was registered as a conservation accredited engineer and with his most up to date information, it was concluded that the building could be retained. Previous decisions regarding loss of authenticity had been upheld.

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. It was expressed that the state of the current building was disappointing to see and that if the matter was not resolved, the building would only fall into further disrepair. It was also noted that other buildings of a similar nature in the area had already been lost and replaced.

The Development Management Team Leader explained the use of the urgent works notice and stated that consultation between the Secretary of State and Historic England had led to the advice that, despite the loss of other buildings, this particular premise was still important. It contributed to the Conservation Area and should be retained. In line with the urgent works notice, the applicant had undertaken the works which should stop any further collapse.

Members expressed sympathy for the applicants but felt that if the building could be saved, it should be. It was considered to be an asset to the area and Members did not wish to see that lost. It was noted that, in terms of preservation matters, the guide was ‘to do no harm’ and it was felt that demolition of the building would not adhere to this.

There was further discussion regarding the expert knowledge of the structural engineer and possible conflicting opinions however it was confirmed that the specialist engineer had been provided with all information and his was the most recent report on the building.

Having had the Officer recommendation moved and seconded, the Chairman undertook the vote. With one abstention it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED.