Download Delegated report 320130824 - Ribble Valley Borough Council

DATE INSPECTED:
Ribble Valley Borough Council
DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - APPROVAL
Ref: AD/EL
Application No:
3/2013/0824/P (LBC)
Development Proposed:
Fabric
repairs
to
external
masonry
including
cleaning/repointing/repairs to well; redecoration of external
joinery; removal of modern tubular handrail and replacement
with new handrails either side of stair at Stydd Almshouses,
Stydd Lane, Ribchester
CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council
Parish Council - No comments or observations received.
CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies
English Heritage – comments received for 3/2013/0837 (14 October 2013) would also
appear to apply to these proposals:
“Do not wish to comment in detail, but offer the following general observations:
The grade II* listed Stydd Almshouses were built in 1728 at the request of John Shireburn of
Stonyhurst Hall, who died in 1726, for the accommodation of five Roman Catholic Spinsters
or widows. They are described in the Buildings of England Volume for Lancashire North as
‘very curious and very engaging’. The upper floor is reached by a wide external stair leading
to a balcony beneath three arches with unusual gable above. Within the grounds, as
common to almshouses, was a communal well, which in this case is listed in its own right at
grade II. The grade II* listed status of the almshouses place them within the top 8% of listed
buildings nationally. Key to the significance of the almshouses is the external appearance
including the delightful and unusual design and detailing; the setting including listed well and
relationship to adjacent church; and the survival of the internal layout maintaining the
understanding of the original purpose of the building.
The proposed works are for the improvement of the setting of the almshouses; the repair of
external fabric and internal alterations, including the re-configuration of bathrooms and
kitchens and the installation of secondary glazing.
English Heritage welcomes the continued use of Stydd Almshouses and the desire to
improve the condition and enhance the setting. English Heritage commend the repairs and
setting enhancements and believe that if they are conducted by suitably skilled and
experienced contractors, they will enable a long term repair and enhancement of this highly
significant building. The internal works proposed should make more efficient use of the
space and will not harm the significance of the building.
When previously consulted, English Heritage’s only concerns about the scheme regarded
the proposals for the windows. English Heritage are happy to see that the new scheme
uses secondary glazing rather than double glazing. English Heritage would accept a change
from the current late 20th century windows; however, English Heritage do not support the use
of double glazing.
English Heritage welcome the proposals for Stydd Almshouses and commend all of the
works. Subject to the approval of the RVBC conservation officer, English Heritage
recommend acceptance of this application.
Recommend that the above issues be addressed and that this application be determined in
accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of RVBC expert
conservation advice”.
Historic amenity societies – consulted – no representations received.
CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations.
No representations have been received.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Policy ENV20 - Proposals Involving Partial Demolition/Alteration of Listed Buildings.
Policy ENV19 - Listed Buildings (Setting).
Policy ENV16 - Development Within Conservation Areas.
Policy G1 - Development Control.
NPPF
HEPPG
Draft NPPG
Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft – Proposed submission version (including
proposed main changes):
Policy DME4 – Protecting Heritage Assets.
Policy DMG1 – General Considerations.
COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION:
‘Nos 1 to 4 (Almshouses)’ is a Grade II* listed building of distinct design and prominent siting
within the Stydd hamlet of Ribchester Conservation Area. It has a rural location and an
important visual association with nearby historic buildings (including the listed buildings of
‘Wellhead in garden east of Almshouses’, ‘Church of St. Peter and St. Paul and ‘Stydd
Lodge, presbytery to Church of St. Peter and St. Paul and attached outbuilding’).
The almshouses are pictured/discussed within ‘The Buildings of England: North Lancashire’
(Hartwell C. & Pevsner N, 2009) and ‘Almshouses’ (Hallett A, 2004). Pevsner (2000; page
239) states ‘Almshouses 1728. Very curious and very engaging. Five bays. The three middle
bays have on the first floor a three-bay arcade of rustic Tuscan columns. This loggia gives
access to three dwellings. The loggia is reached by an open staircase with curved sides.
Truncated shaped gable on the top’.
The almshouse list description refers to ‘founded under the will of John Shireburne, who died
in 1726. Sanstone ashlar and brick (the sides and rear pebbledashed) with stone slate roof.
2 storeys, unusual for almshouses. The central portion projects with a truncated shaped
gable, topped by a cornice. On the 1st floor is an arcade of 3 semi-circular moulded arches
with keystones, 2 unfluted Doric columns and 2 similar half columns as responds. The 2
outer openings have stone balustrades. This is approached by a central flight of 16 stone
steps, curving outwards at the bottom and having a solid parapet with shaped coping’.
The wellhead list description refers to ‘Wellhead, probably C19th. Circular, of 4 pieces of
sandstone joined by iron clamps. Iron supports to spindle with wooden roller and handle on
cast-iron wheel’.
The Ribchester Conservation Area Appraisal (The Conservation Studio consultants; adopted
by the Borough Council 3 April 2007 following public consultation) states:
‘Ribchester Conservation Area consists of the village core centred around a small triangular
area, on one side of which is the White Bull Inn, and Stydd, a rural area north-east of the
th
main settlement which contains two churches and 18 century almshouses … Stydd is
approached via a narrow single track road. After leading first to the Roman Catholic Church
of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, a listed ‘barn church’ built in 1789, then Stydd Almshouses
th
(1728), the road becomes a rough track that continues to the late 12 century Church of St
Saviour’ (Overview).
‘Stydd Almshouses, listed grade II* … Stydd, a tiny rural hamlet containing two historic
th
churches and 18 century almshouses … Church of St Peter and St Paul (grade II), a ‘barn
church’ and one of the earliest Catholic churches in Lancashire … Two grade I churches:
Church of St Wilfred and Church of St Saviour, Stydd’ (Summary of Special Interest).
‘Stydd Almshouses which, according to a lost inscription, were built by John Sherburne in
1698. The almshouses are, of two storeys with a first floor arcade of three semi-circular
moulded arches, and two, possibly re-used Roman, Doric columns. The upper floor is
approached by a central flight of stone steps, and the building originally contained six
dwellings, five for poor old single women or widows professing the Roman Catholic religion,
and the sixth for the school teacher, free of rent’ (Origins and Historic Development).
‘Stydd is a small rural hamlet in which a few buildings are set in virtually open countryside’
(The Character of Spaces within the Area).
‘In keeping with many small provincial towns, the impact of Georgian building techniques
was notable but also mixed with local building techniques and building customs continued to
be used. Some of the cottages whilst being broadly vernacular in style have high quality
classically inspired detailing on their sandstone door surrounds. As with many other towns
where nineteenth century development was limited, the physical environment retains a
distinctive local individuality’ (Architectural and Historic Character).
Relevant planning history
No formal pre-application advice has been sought.
3/2013/0837 - Alteration and refurbishment of internal spaces. LBC granted 20 November
2011.
3/2013/0647 - Fabric repairs to external masonry including cleaning, repointing,
redecoration of external joinery and repairs to well. Replacing modern windows with
new timber windows. Removing modern tubular handrail and replacing with handrail
either side of stair. Alterations to external hard landscaping finishes. LBC refused 10
September 2013.
3/1994/0324 – REMOVE EXISTING SEPTIC TANK, INSTALL BELOW GROUND SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT AND ASSOCIAGED DRAINAGE. PP granted 28 June 1994.
3/1994/0224 & 0223 – DEMOLISH SECTION OF PERIMETER WALL, PROVIDE GATE &
ACCESS FROM CAR PARK, NEW STEPS & STONE WALL SURROUND. LBC & CAC
granted 10 June 1994.
3/1988/0329 - Renovation of exterior and interior. LBC granted 19 August 1988. Condition
insisting on sliding sash replacement windows to front elevation (English Heritage request).
4/6/5575 - Alterations and improvements. Permission granted 16 April 1962.
Relevant legislation, policy and guidance
Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that
when considering applications for listed building consent, special regard shall be had to the
desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or
historic interest which it possesses.
Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states
that in the exercise of planning functions special attention shall be paid to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
Mrs Justice Lang’s recent judgement in East Northamptonshire has confirmed that
‘desirability’ means ‘sought-after objective’ and that ‘in order to give effect to the statutory
duty under section 66(1), a decision-maker should accord considerable importance and
weight to ‘the desirability of preserving … the setting’ of listed buildings when weighing this
factor in the balance with other ‘material considerations’ which have not been given this
special statutory status’.
Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
- the courts have said that these statutory requirements operate as ‘a paramount
consideration’;‘the first consideration for a decision maker’ (‘Mike Harlow, Governance and
Legal Director, English Heritage in ‘Legal Developments’ Conservation Bulletin Issue 71:
Winter 2013)
The Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (June 1998) is particularly relevant at Policies
ENV20, ENV19, ENV16 and G1.
The NPPF is particularly relevant at paragraph 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 56 - 57, 60 - 61, 126, 128 –
129, 131-134, 137, 187- 190, 196-197 and 215- 216.
The HEPPG is particularly relevant at paragraph 80, 113-122, 141-143, 149, 151, 153, 179 –
180, 187 and 192.
Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft Post Submission Revision (including
proposed main changes) is particularly relevant at Policies DME4 and DMG1.
‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the
Historic Environment’ (English Heritage, 2008) identifies four groups of heritage values:
Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal.
‘Constructive Conservation in Practice’ (English Heritage, 2008) states “Constructive
Conservation is the broad term adopted by English Heritage for a positive and collaborative
approach to conservation that focuses on actively managing change.
The aim is to recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places, while
accommodating the changes necessary to ensure their continued use and enjoyment …
… The Principles also underline the importance of a systematic and consistent approach to
conservation. In order to provide this consistency, we are guided by a values-based
approach to assessing heritage significance”.
The English Heritage ‘Listing Selection Guide: Health and Welfare Buildings’ (April 2011)
states:
‘These represent a valuable link between medieval and modern approaches to welfare
provision. St Cross Hospital, Winchester (refounded in 1443, and still flourishing; listed
Grade I), embodies the collegiate approach of individual units around shared facilities that
continues down to this day. The combination of private and municipal charity means that
some towns have several almshouses, some – as in the case of Banbury (Oxfordshire; listed
Grade II) – growing out of medieval charitable institutions which survived the Reformation.
Almshouses are distinctive both in plan form and architectural detail, with prominently
placed chapels serving to project the piety of their benefactors and the sanctity of charity;
secular status was also confirmed through heraldry, sculpture and inscriptions.
Accommodation for residents was frequently set to the side or rear and resembled a cloister
or college quadrangle, with similar emphases on formality. Worcester’s Berkeley Hospital of
1703 (listed Grade II) exemplifies the category, and must stand for many other foundations.
The almshouse tradition remained strong throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth
century; where there is good design quality, frequently in a revivalist manner, and the
building is not too damaged by alteration, they will be eligible for designation. Their
traditionalism is part of their appeal, so architectural conservatism is to be expected; it is the
quality of design and execution which will determine listing’.
The ‘Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance’ (EH, October 2011) states:
“the numbers and proximity of heritage assets in urban areas means that setting is intimately
linked to considerations of townscape and urban design” (2.2).
‘”many heritage assets have settings that have been designed to enhance their presence
and visual interest or to create experiences of drama or surprise. Views and vistas, or their
deliberate screening, are key features of these designed settings, providing design axes and
establishing their scale, structure, layout and character. These designed settings may also
be regarded as heritage assets in their own rights, which, themselves, have a wider setting:
a park may form the immediate setting for a great house, while having its own setting that
includes lines-of-sight to more distant heritage assets or natural features beyond the park
boundary’’ (2.5).
“where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by
unsympathetic development affecting its setting … consideration still needs to be given to
whether additional change will further detract from … the significance of the asset” (2.4).
“The setting of some heritage assets may have remained relatively unaltered over a long
period and closely resemble the setting in which the asset was constructed or first used. The
likelihood of this original setting surviving unchanged tends to decline with age and, where
this is the case, it is likely to make an important contribution to the heritage asset’s
significance ... the recognition of, and response to, the setting of heritage assets as an
aspect of townscape character is an important aspect of the design process for new
development, and will, at least in part, determine the quality of the final result” (2.5).
The Ribchester Conservation Area Appraisal states:
‘Loss of architectural detail (original windows, doors etc) … Insensitive alteration of historic
buildings spoiling the conservation area’s historic character and appearance’ (SWOT
analysis: Weaknesses: The principal negative features of the Ribchester Conservation
Area).
‘Continuing loss of original architectural details and use of inappropriate modern materials or
details: Many of the unlisted, and some of the listed, buildings in the conservation have been
adversely affected by the use of inappropriate modern materials or details’ (SWOT analysis:
Threats to the Ribchester Conservation Area).
The Ribchester Conservation Area Management Guidance (The Conservation Studio
consultants) states:
“Stone cleaning: All stone cleaning techniques have an inherent risk of damaging the stone
and must be selected and executed with care.
Cleaning may sometimes be desirable to prevent the harm caused by corrosive dirt or to
reveal where problems are hidden by encrustations. However, cleaning is less justifiable for
aesthetic reasons alone, and consideration must be given to its impact on the historic
character of the building (e.g. loss of 'the patina of age') especially if located in a terrace.
Cleaning with water and bristle brushes is the simplest method, although water cleaning can
lead to saturation of the walls.
Abrasive cleaning methods, including blasting of any kind, are likely to cause damage and
should only be used where the necessary skills are available to carry out the work without
harming the stonework. Techniques that use hand-held and mechanical tools with
carborundum heads, rotary brushes and abrasive blocks should be considered as a
resurfacing technique rather than a cleaning method.
Prior to cleaning, a sample panel(s) in an unobtrusive location should be prepared to
ascertain the suitability of the technique and the effect on the fabric, character and
appearance of the building.
Renders: The use of an impervious Portland cement render (and/or application of an
impervious paint) in place of a traditional lime-based covering restricts evaporation. On
buildings pre-dating about 1800, the original render is likely to have been of ordinary (nonhydraulic) lime or natural hydraulic lime that has a weak chemical set. After that time, the
introduction of eminently hydraulic limes began a trend which culminated in the widespread
use of cement. Lime-based renders provide a different aesthetic effect to cement-based
renders. Although a range of finishes exists with each, the latter has a more uniform
appearance, and corners and details are sharper and more defined. Weathering
characteristics also differ. Cement renders often fail in patches and detach from the wall,
whereas lime renders gradually erode back in a more even manner.
On traditionally constructed buildings replacement renders should generally be a soft and
porous lime render without the addition of cement. It is important that the render is applied
by someone familiar with lime-based materials. A traditional limewash will normally be the
most appropriate finish as the high water permeability will allow the walls to 'breathe'.
Cement based or other waterproof and hard gloss paints should not be used on surfaces
covered with traditional render”.
‘Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to
Historic and Traditionally Constructed Buildings’ (EH, 2011) states:
“Where walls need to transpire, new materials intended to form barriers to unwanted
moisture or water vapour can impede the very processes which help a historic wall to
survive in good condition.
Commonplace examples include:
• hard cement mortar pointing which catches rainwater and diverts it into a wall, by-passing
the overcoat effect
• hard external rendering, intended to keep the rain out, which also stops moisture
evaporating and causes the wall to become damper; when cracked, it also traps rainwater,
making things even worse
• modern impervious paints, which cause previously sound plaster to break down because
rising and penetrating damp can no longer evaporate
• other impervious materials applied internally that cause moisture to accumulate, in turn
leading to decay of embedded materials (such as timber) which are hidden from sight until
deterioration has become severe. The impervious layers can lead to a build-up of salts in the
underlying substrate. The salts then crystallise and rupture the original construction”.
‘The Need for Old Buildings to Breathe’ (Philip Hughes, SPAB, 1993) states:
“modern buildings will be damp without a barrier to moisture because the economy of design
does not provide a massive and absorbent structure, but old buildings will become damp if
an impervious layer is applied to them because this prevents water within the structure from
evaporating ... as the moisture content of the wall increases, the likelihood of decay also
increases. Timbers quickly succumb to wet or dry rot attack because their moisture content
is too high. Timbers often occur in solid masonry walls in the form of lintels, spreaders for
beam or joist ends, as bonding timbers or as fixing blocks …
Remedial action should ideally involve the removal of any impervious materials and their
replacement with porous ones. This is not always possible without doing further damage to
the fabric of the building and compromise may be necessary.
Cement renders can sometimes be removed after working over the surface thoroughly with
a hammer to fracture the render into small units. Levering off large sheets of render will
cause severe damage to soft underlying materials. Where a render is so hard that it does
not respond, it is probably best to leave it to age naturally. Rendering should be in a lime or
a very weak cement/lime mix.
Cement pointing should be cut out but sometimes it adheres so well that its removal will
damage the surrounding masonry. In these circumstances, it is usually best to leave what
cannot be removed easily and to patch point with a lime based mortar.
Paints can sometimes be scraped off when they have started to blister and peel or may be
removed by any of the methods suggested in the SPAB Information Sheet on Paint
Removal. Paints which adhere strongly and which resist usual removal methods, are best
left until they age. If, in the latter case, they should become patchy, the wall can be
redecorated in lime wash until the paint is sufficiently decayed to remove.
Where walls have been mistreated in any of the ways mentioned, it is essential they are kept
as dry and as well ventilated as possible. Water must not be allowed to enter the top of the
wall or behind the impervious material.
Solid walls which have become saturated may take many months or even years to dry out.
During the drying process, salts will be deposited on the surfaces and this can lead to severe
breakdown of the materials. In some cases it may be necessary to poultice the walls or
apply another finish over it to draw the salts out of the masonry. This is particularly
important where ornamental work may be at risk”.
‘The Control of Damp in Old Buildings’ (Andrew Thomas, SPAB, 1992) states “first try
stopping sources of damp by ventilation, opening up redundant flues, repointing if
necessary, lowering the water table”.
Wright A ‘Removing Paint from Old Buildings’ (SPAB Information Sheet 5, 1994) advises:
“Damp problems are frequently introduced into an old building by applying a modern
cement-based render, or other impervious type paint, to a wall that had previously been lime
washed. Removal of the modern paint can damage the wall to a certain extent and it may
be preferable to allow the paint to erode naturally and patch with lime wash in the
meantime”.
‘Masonry Decay: Dealing with the Erosion of Sandstone’ (Historic Scotland, 2005) states
“stone cleaning should be generally avoided or, if it is thought necessary, it should be carried
out to the most stringent standards and in the least damaging manner”.
English Heritage guidance ‘Easy Access to Historic Buildings’ (2004) states “The aim should
always be to reconcile the interests of conservation and access”. The recommended
approach to determining reasonableness is to produce an access plan from an access audit
and a conservation assessment “preparing an access plan, and working through the issues
it raises, is fundamental to the process of determining the need for changes to a historic
building … the process should consider the options available”.
HEPPG paragraph 144 states “There are various legal requirements that buildings have to
comply with, such as Building Regulations and the Disability Discrimination /Act. Sometimes,
the best means of conserving a heritage asset will seem to conflict with the requirements of
such regimes. Local planning authorities are encouraged to consider imaginative ways of
avoiding such conflict. Where conflict is unavoidable, such regimes generally allow for some
flexibility so that a balance can be struck”.
HEPPG paragraph 45 states “There will almost always be scope to provide improved access
for all without compromising the significance of a heritage asset”.
The comments of the Planning Inspector considering APP/T2350/A/13/2193965 (Dog &
Partridge, Tosside) are noted. No physical alterations were proposed to the listed building
(paragraph 4) and the Inspector decided to dismiss the appeal largely because of the loss of
public access and historic function as a public house. This resulted in substantial harm to
special historic interest (paragraph 11).
Mike Harlow, Governance and Legal Director, English Heritage (in ‘Legal Developments’
Conservation Bulletin Issue 71: Winter 2013) states: “Planning decisions are all about
balanced judgment, but in that exercise there must be a sense of the weight society, through
parliament, wishes to place on an objective like heritage conservation. The protection of
listed buildings and conservation areas is clearly regarded as highly important, and that
obviously should not be forgotten, out of respect for the democratic will as well as the law”.
Submitted information
An impact and justification statement has been submitted.
The agent has provided further information/justification (see RVBC letter 27 September 2013
and response 30 September 2013) in respect to proposed handrails, cement pointing
removal, building cleaning and well significance/repairs.
The agent confirms:
Pointing
“due to this mortar being considerably stronger than the masonry (stone and brick) it is
causing significant accelerated decay to the building fabric … it is accepted that a small
number of bricks will need replacement as a consequence of the removal of the cement
mortar … however in the longer term its removal and replacement with a relatively soft lime
mortar will ensure the rate of decay of the masonry is significantly reduced thus more of the
original fabric will be preserved … benefits to the visual appearance of the building as the
cement mortar is incongruous … cement mortar presently will be restricting the ability of the
building to breath … in balance we believe that the potential benefits outweigh the potential
loss”.
Cleaning
“the conservation cleaning of the masonry using TORC and DOFF systems isn’t essential
however we felt that a light clean of the building to remove surface latents would be
beneficial in this instance to help harmonise the new pointing and small quantity of new
bricks with the existing fabric. The intention is not to remove the patina of age but to provide
a balanced and well-presented building visually. Without this light cleaning the new works
may appear a little harsh. Given the relatively clean air we currently enjoy it could take quite
a number of years for the works harmonise as a consequence”.
Additional handrail
“the installation of an additional handrail isn’t essential but it is preferred for two reasons.
Firstly, people who are ambulant disabled can have more strength on one side of their body
than another. Therefore for practical reasons and to ensure greater compliance to disabled
accessibility regulations two hand rails are proposed. Secondly, the principal elevation to
Stydd Almshouses is perfectly symmetrical. Installing rails to both sides of the stair would
maintain this symmetry”.
Well
“the well is currently not functioning however the windlass is in such an advanced state of
decay it could collapse in the near future which may have the consequence of the iron
straps, handle etc being damaged or lost. The ironwork maybe contemporary to the
construction of the building (or at the very least 19th century) thus we believed it was
essential to replace the timber windlass to (ensure) the iron components would be
persevered in situ”.
Conclusions
Previous ‘refurbishment’ schemes have harmed the significance of this very important
building. In my opinion, mindful of the justification provided by the agent, the comments of
English Heritage and consideration to the long term preservation of the building [see NPPF
paragraph 134 - public benefits and section 16 P (LBs & CAs) Act 1990], the potentially
harmful works to remove cement pointing are acceptable (subject to the imposition of
conditions).
I am conscious of the health and welfare origins of almshouse provision and of the historic
as well as architectural interest of this building (see Dog & Partridge appeal). Whilst
additional handrail provision may not be essential, I consider it to be an acceptable element
of the scheme subject to harm being minimised in installation.
The well’s wooden roller is referred to in the list description. However, mindful of the
justification provided by the agent, the comments of English Heritage and the long term
preservation of the well’s most important features of special architectural and historic interest
[see NPPF paragraph 134 - public benefits and section 16 P (LBs & CAs) Act 1990], I
consider this element of the scheme to be acceptable.
I note Historic Scotland that “stone cleaning should be generally avoided” and the Ribchester
Conservation Area Management Guidance that “Cleaning may sometimes be desirable to
prevent the harm caused by corrosive dirt or to reveal where problems are hidden by
encrustations. However, cleaning is less justifiable for aesthetic reasons alone”. In my
opinion, clear and convincing justification for the undertaking of cleaning work is yet to be
made (NPPF paragraph 132).
RECOMMENDATION: That conditional listed building consent be granted.