calling all conservation officers

[plasticpigeon]

Last one for today. Can anyone help with advice please. Birmingham is terrible at conservation. It seems that the council believe that any development is good for the economy of the area no matter how poor or what is lost to enable it. Here is a street scene just yards from the top of my road. One of the reasons I liked the area was this small section of road in an otherwise quite deprived area of Birmingham. Some very aggressive architects APEC who seem to have their fingers in lots of pies are working with the local baptist church to try and demolish the building on the corner to build a training centre, which will be very big and ugly. They have no firm funding but hope to get money from the lottery to do so as far as I understand. The scheme is very unpopular with residents, the church congregation, and English heritage, the Victorian society and the planning officer that deals with conservation (I believe conservation officers were abolished in Birmingham and were amalgamated into planning) have all objected. The church and hall to the right and left are listed grade 2. The house and the hall on the corner are locally listed. Planning applications have been submitted and then withdrawn a number of timesas the planning department have said they are mindful to refuse, but they keep coming back with new ones. I know what happens round here and the planning committee will get worn down I'm sure, and as the reason for the new building is for employment training it seems a very noble cause but I believe it could be acheived in a less destructive way. CCould anyone give advice on what more can be done to try and stop this other than the usual letters to the council and petitions which we have already done to death. many thanks.

 

[andrew gayton]

Are they within a conservation area?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Unfortunately not. A local area group is trying to get the council to acknowledge that certain areas are worthy of being made conservation areas, but after all the conservation officers were effectively got rid of by amalgamating them into general planning all the work on cataloguing and defining the conseravation areas is being done by volunteers so it will be a while before it happens if at all.

 

[andrew gayton]

section 69 of the planning (listed building and conservation areas) act 1990 states - 'every local planning authority shall from time to time determine which parts of their area are of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, and shall designate those areas as conservation areas' ....................................

 

[plasticpigeon]

Do you know if there is some way I and other local residents can speed it up?? Does this also mean that the council could say that the area is of no special interest if they choose to. This is the city where a prominent councillor publicly called conservationists "middle class idiots"!

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/conservative-councillor-labels-conservationists-as-middle-146533

 

[andrew gayton]

get in touch with the regional english heritage inspector, ask to meet them on site to look at the area and get their input. look at the english heritage guidance on conservation areas and management plans .............

 

[plasticpigeon]

Thanks I shall do that.

 

[andrew gayton]

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/contact-us/offices/

 

[andrew gayton]

http://www.cravendc.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1184&p=0

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Slightly debatable, but if the hall predates 1948, belongs to, is in use with, and was built as part of, the Baptist Church development, and the church is listed, then the hall falls within the curtilage of the listed church and is therefore listed.
(5) In this Act "listed building" means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a) any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
shall be treated as part of the building.
This could, however, also cause a problem in that (if the church is a member of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and not to another Baptist group), it might fall outside normal secular control in respect of listed building (though not planning) matters owing to the Ecclesiastical Exemption.

Whatever the case, loss of that building would clearly cause substantial harm to the setting of the two adjacent listed buildings, particularly the church with which it is obviously designed to appear as a unified work of architecture. It is doubtful that the proposed use of the new building could not be accommodated either within the existing building or on another site nearby, so that no matter how worthy the social and economic benefits of the proposed new building might be, it appears on the evidence available that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the heritage assets (both the listed and the locally listed buildings).

Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
●the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
●no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
●conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
●the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. (NPPF para 133)

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It would be quite difficult to imagine a less appropriate replacement building (given that its scale will be dictated by reaosnable requirements)

 

[plasticpigeon]

Thanks Gareth, it didn't take you long to find the planning application or some old version of it. I have seen a couple of plans for a replacement building and they all look as bad as that one. The architects involved keep slating the hall saying that it is a terrible building and a poor arts and crafts inspired design, that it doesn't fit well in an Edwardian setting and that it would be more at home in a small village or garden suburb. Their proposals apparently have integrity, are contemporary and fit in with the ethos of its intended use. They are the most arrogant and aggressive people I have ever met (I met them at a consultation where they declared that they are architects, the local residents are not therefore they have authority to condemn the building and we are not qualified to object as we know nothing about architecture).

The proposal seems to be some sort of verbal approach to architecture. Their intentions all sound honourable, but the reality is appallingly bad. In fact a lot of art seems to be similar, where the complicated and convoluted explanation justifies the mess being exhibited. I suppose it is necessary when the object has little intrinsic value and cannot really be admired for what it is. I'm not claiming that the hall is a spectacular building in its own right, but it is attractive, functional and fits very well in its surroundings. I'm glad you agree it is worth fighting to save.

 

[88v8]

I can slightly see what the 'architects' mean, the hall looks more comfortable from the initial view you posted, but that does not in any way justify destroying it.
And their proposed replacement?
Insensitive. Crass. Ugly. Stupid. Dated.
Which probably also describes them and those supporting the proposals.

Ivor