Planning concerns
This article was published in the November 2011 edition of the Newsletter. Although specifically about a planing application in St. Mary’s Place, it contains much to ponder on regarding planning issues in general, which is why it is published here. The author lives in St. Mary’s Place.
The out of place Hotel.
One Friday in April 2009 we were surprised to see an enthusiastic article on the front page of the Stamford Mercury proclaiming that a developer was proposing to convert no.4 St Mary’s Place, three doors away from us, into a hotel and restaurant. After much debate, in September 2009 the Planning Committee of South Kesteven District Council unanimously rejected the scheme, despite recommendation by the planning officers, as totally inappropriate for the Place and the building.
The developer then duly appealed against this decision and a Public Inquiry took place at the Stamford Town Hall over intermittent seven days between the 28th April and 26th May 2010. After an exhausting but not exhaustive rehearsal of the evidence and arguments, the Inquiry Inspector finally dismissed the developers’ objections to the Council decisions, both as to the ‘Change of Use’ and as to Listed Building considerations.
The developer then re-submitted a slightly changed scheme, which was again rejected by the SKDC Planning Committee on 1st March 2011. As the planners once again supported the proposal, a technical report was commissioned in mid April 2011 on just one of the contentious issues. This was then considered by the planning committee, now extensively changed after the May local elections, and this granted ‘Change of Use’ on 31st May 2011. After further considerations, the committee finally gave permission for ‘The alteration and extension to the Listed Building’ on 26th July 2011.
This, then, is a very brief outline of the long and confused planning process, which lasted over two years.
There was unusually strong and widespread hostility to this proposal and this seems to have arisen from three basic kinds of argument against it.
Firstly, St Mary’s Place is an exceptionally well-preserved example of a mediaeval spatial enclave, the only one in Stamford that has not had a tarmac road laid across it to help traffic flow. Although it is certainly already under pressure as a short cut and parking destination, it remains an essentially contained and cobbled ‘Place’, not a road. The Royal Commission singled it out as one of a small group of special areas of ‘paramount importance’ in Stamford.
As there was no rear access to the proposed boutique hotel and especially to an aspiring ’destination’ restaurant, all the huge servicing needs would be have to be continuously delivered across the cobbles, counter to the prevailing traffic flow, and funnelled through one little door in the Place’s corner. Similarly, all the considerable outflow of rubbish generated by such an intensive enterprise was to be trundled down the pavement to the front of the Town Hall for collection. A brief inspection of the actual logistics is truly appalling. To this must be added car/taxi access of guests and clients to hotel and restaurant and the search for parking places. The often serious existing traffic problems would be hugely multiplied.
But it is not just vehicles that threaten. A petition sent to Lincolnshire Highways entitled ‘Pavements are for People’ demonstrated the extreme frustration and anger of passing pedestrians with even the existing traffic behaviour. The continuous confrontation of pedestrians, often mothers with buggies or schoolchildren, with approaching vehicles down the pavements, causes real resentment and is not, as Lincs. Highways would have it, an acceptable compromise in an old town; the proposed increase of traffic and pedestrians can only exacerbate this already difficult situation.
Secondly, the Place has long been essentially residential and has been carefully zoned outside the commercial Town Centre. The Council’s own policy, supported by the research of the Rowntree Trust, has maintained the vital importance of returning residents to the increasingly empty town centre houses and of restoring the vitality of the street, especially in the evenings. The increasing nationwide phenomenon of desolate historical commercial centres after the shops close is not inevitable.
Furthermore, English Heritage had clearly stipulated that no. 4 should remain as domestic as long as there remained any realistic prospect of this. Three bids were indeed made by hopeful house buyers during the two months the property was on the market. The demand for such domestic properties clearly does still remain, but this was simply ignored by the planners. Although the Inspector singled out noise from the garden as one reason for dismissing the developers’ appeal, extract noise, smell and overlook still remain as unacceptable intrusions on the neighbouring residents’ lives, and not just occasionally – this will be a life sentence.
Thirdly, the shoe-horning of a highly serviced, modern restaurant and hotel, with all the necessary fire and safety standards required, will certainly damage this fragile historic building. Its Grade 2* listed status is shared by a total of over 90 others in Stamford, often linked in cohesive groups as in the Place, and together they comprise an almost unique concentration of such buildings in Britain. (Compare this, for instance, with Bath’s 45 2* buildings.)
While the churches and civic building are, of course, an integral part of a historic town, Stamford’s particular glory is the continuity and preservation of its domestic buildings, and the protection of them, especially their interiors, is therefore a key challenge. These domestic interiors can certainly temporarily accommodate other uses and the Civic Society has long been aware of the need for flexibility in this regard, but the proposed change at no.4 is not a minor change or a temporary one. As Dr Fair, an experienced conservationist testified at the SKDC Planning Committee, the changes will inevitably erode the fragile fabric of the building, and moreover the proposed modern additions, while technically “reversible”, will, in reality, never be reversed in any foreseeable future. Once changed, this building will be lost to Stamford’s unique collection of domestic properties and will become a permanent and unneeded hotel, and not necessarily the high quality one proposed by this particular developer.
The limitations of English Heritage as the key defence against unacceptable development is once again evident, as it can only ‘recommend’, often in very general and ambiguous language, leaving the Conservation Officer with the decisive role of ‘interpreter’. In this case, the Inquiry Inspector rejected the officer’s willingness to allow the roofing-over of an internal courtyard, but this merely emphasises how arbitrary and precarious are the statutory defences of key historical buildings.
This, then, is a brief account of some of the main arguments against the hotel proposal. The main reason for the length of this planning process seems to be the depth and widespread range of the opposition to it. This was not just another application for change, but in important respects one that was different in nature, quite exceptional in the threat it posed to Stamford’s historical defences. If a devastating proposal such as this could succeed, what hope is there for the future of England’s first Conservation Area? This was among the biggest challenges that have faced the Civic Society and it has tenaciously resisted it as totally inappropriate to the Place and the building; the Chairman and committee members have repeatedly and clearly stated the Society’s firm objections by letter and at successive planning committees.
The local representatives of both the Town and the District Councils have also voiced the town’s widely felt hostility to the scheme, and Councillor Maureen Jalili and ex-councillor John Harvey, in particular, have conducted an exceptionally brave and clear-sighted resistance to this scheme. The continuing need to strike a convincing balance between the ongoing needs of a developing, vital town and the responsibility of safeguarding a heritage of which we are all the temporary guardians, is always a difficult one, but in this particular case, there was never any doubt about the choice.
Pevsner’s famous lament over the decision in 1935 to level Stamford’s castle mound and tower foundations for the temporary expedience of a car park still resonates. If a short term apparent economic benefit is gained at the cost of long term damage to the town it will be illusory as the town itself is our greatest asset, environmentally and economically.
As to the future, what, if anything, can be learnt from this sad affair? Stamford is just too attractive to developers for us to delude ourselves that this is a one-off event. The perception will inevitably spread that potential developers with sufficient funds and tenacity will finally prevail against underfunded councils advised by increasingly cautious planning departments. The town’s heritage is clearly insufficiently defended against such determined developers.
But the community is not necessarily condemned to helplessly watch the continual erosion. The present government is proposing a shift to greater local decision-making, which may or may not contribute to the empowerment of local opinion. Meanwhile, a far greater mobilisation of local opinion seems to be a growing contemporary necessity. The prospect of isolated groups across Stamford contending alone with large outside forces is a bleak one. If people really care about ‘our beautiful town’, then we all need to be more active and united in our protests. The widespread dismay and anger at developers’ proposals is clearly not sufficiently focussed and mobilised at present.
Finally, it has been proposed that a ‘Design Access Panel’ be established for Stamford, modelled on the existing one for Cambridge. This apparently consists of different experts of national standing who consider important planning applications submitted to them, and make recommendations. Their judgments would be highly informed and researched in the way that a conservation officer is unable to do. Though not definitive, the committee’s judgments would add a missing degree of authority to the subsequent planning process, which is often a matter of ill-founded assertions. The idea of establishing some such commission has already been supported by our local MP, Nick Boles, and the Chief Executive of the SKDC. This sad tale has at least shown a pressing need to create a permanent body with an informed overview that could reconcile the future needs for growth and vitality with greater care for our inheritance from the past and the Civic Society would surely have a role to play here.
James Heesom, October 2011
The out of place Hotel.
One Friday in April 2009 we were surprised to see an enthusiastic article on the front page of the Stamford Mercury proclaiming that a developer was proposing to convert no.4 St Mary’s Place, three doors away from us, into a hotel and restaurant. After much debate, in September 2009 the Planning Committee of South Kesteven District Council unanimously rejected the scheme, despite recommendation by the planning officers, as totally inappropriate for the Place and the building.
The developer then duly appealed against this decision and a Public Inquiry took place at the Stamford Town Hall over intermittent seven days between the 28th April and 26th May 2010. After an exhausting but not exhaustive rehearsal of the evidence and arguments, the Inquiry Inspector finally dismissed the developers’ objections to the Council decisions, both as to the ‘Change of Use’ and as to Listed Building considerations.
The developer then re-submitted a slightly changed scheme, which was again rejected by the SKDC Planning Committee on 1st March 2011. As the planners once again supported the proposal, a technical report was commissioned in mid April 2011 on just one of the contentious issues. This was then considered by the planning committee, now extensively changed after the May local elections, and this granted ‘Change of Use’ on 31st May 2011. After further considerations, the committee finally gave permission for ‘The alteration and extension to the Listed Building’ on 26th July 2011.
This, then, is a very brief outline of the long and confused planning process, which lasted over two years.
There was unusually strong and widespread hostility to this proposal and this seems to have arisen from three basic kinds of argument against it.
Firstly, St Mary’s Place is an exceptionally well-preserved example of a mediaeval spatial enclave, the only one in Stamford that has not had a tarmac road laid across it to help traffic flow. Although it is certainly already under pressure as a short cut and parking destination, it remains an essentially contained and cobbled ‘Place’, not a road. The Royal Commission singled it out as one of a small group of special areas of ‘paramount importance’ in Stamford.
As there was no rear access to the proposed boutique hotel and especially to an aspiring ’destination’ restaurant, all the huge servicing needs would be have to be continuously delivered across the cobbles, counter to the prevailing traffic flow, and funnelled through one little door in the Place’s corner. Similarly, all the considerable outflow of rubbish generated by such an intensive enterprise was to be trundled down the pavement to the front of the Town Hall for collection. A brief inspection of the actual logistics is truly appalling. To this must be added car/taxi access of guests and clients to hotel and restaurant and the search for parking places. The often serious existing traffic problems would be hugely multiplied.
But it is not just vehicles that threaten. A petition sent to Lincolnshire Highways entitled ‘Pavements are for People’ demonstrated the extreme frustration and anger of passing pedestrians with even the existing traffic behaviour. The continuous confrontation of pedestrians, often mothers with buggies or schoolchildren, with approaching vehicles down the pavements, causes real resentment and is not, as Lincs. Highways would have it, an acceptable compromise in an old town; the proposed increase of traffic and pedestrians can only exacerbate this already difficult situation.
Secondly, the Place has long been essentially residential and has been carefully zoned outside the commercial Town Centre. The Council’s own policy, supported by the research of the Rowntree Trust, has maintained the vital importance of returning residents to the increasingly empty town centre houses and of restoring the vitality of the street, especially in the evenings. The increasing nationwide phenomenon of desolate historical commercial centres after the shops close is not inevitable.
Furthermore, English Heritage had clearly stipulated that no. 4 should remain as domestic as long as there remained any realistic prospect of this. Three bids were indeed made by hopeful house buyers during the two months the property was on the market. The demand for such domestic properties clearly does still remain, but this was simply ignored by the planners. Although the Inspector singled out noise from the garden as one reason for dismissing the developers’ appeal, extract noise, smell and overlook still remain as unacceptable intrusions on the neighbouring residents’ lives, and not just occasionally – this will be a life sentence.
Thirdly, the shoe-horning of a highly serviced, modern restaurant and hotel, with all the necessary fire and safety standards required, will certainly damage this fragile historic building. Its Grade 2* listed status is shared by a total of over 90 others in Stamford, often linked in cohesive groups as in the Place, and together they comprise an almost unique concentration of such buildings in Britain. (Compare this, for instance, with Bath’s 45 2* buildings.)
While the churches and civic building are, of course, an integral part of a historic town, Stamford’s particular glory is the continuity and preservation of its domestic buildings, and the protection of them, especially their interiors, is therefore a key challenge. These domestic interiors can certainly temporarily accommodate other uses and the Civic Society has long been aware of the need for flexibility in this regard, but the proposed change at no.4 is not a minor change or a temporary one. As Dr Fair, an experienced conservationist testified at the SKDC Planning Committee, the changes will inevitably erode the fragile fabric of the building, and moreover the proposed modern additions, while technically “reversible”, will, in reality, never be reversed in any foreseeable future. Once changed, this building will be lost to Stamford’s unique collection of domestic properties and will become a permanent and unneeded hotel, and not necessarily the high quality one proposed by this particular developer.
The limitations of English Heritage as the key defence against unacceptable development is once again evident, as it can only ‘recommend’, often in very general and ambiguous language, leaving the Conservation Officer with the decisive role of ‘interpreter’. In this case, the Inquiry Inspector rejected the officer’s willingness to allow the roofing-over of an internal courtyard, but this merely emphasises how arbitrary and precarious are the statutory defences of key historical buildings.
This, then, is a brief account of some of the main arguments against the hotel proposal. The main reason for the length of this planning process seems to be the depth and widespread range of the opposition to it. This was not just another application for change, but in important respects one that was different in nature, quite exceptional in the threat it posed to Stamford’s historical defences. If a devastating proposal such as this could succeed, what hope is there for the future of England’s first Conservation Area? This was among the biggest challenges that have faced the Civic Society and it has tenaciously resisted it as totally inappropriate to the Place and the building; the Chairman and committee members have repeatedly and clearly stated the Society’s firm objections by letter and at successive planning committees.
The local representatives of both the Town and the District Councils have also voiced the town’s widely felt hostility to the scheme, and Councillor Maureen Jalili and ex-councillor John Harvey, in particular, have conducted an exceptionally brave and clear-sighted resistance to this scheme. The continuing need to strike a convincing balance between the ongoing needs of a developing, vital town and the responsibility of safeguarding a heritage of which we are all the temporary guardians, is always a difficult one, but in this particular case, there was never any doubt about the choice.
Pevsner’s famous lament over the decision in 1935 to level Stamford’s castle mound and tower foundations for the temporary expedience of a car park still resonates. If a short term apparent economic benefit is gained at the cost of long term damage to the town it will be illusory as the town itself is our greatest asset, environmentally and economically.
As to the future, what, if anything, can be learnt from this sad affair? Stamford is just too attractive to developers for us to delude ourselves that this is a one-off event. The perception will inevitably spread that potential developers with sufficient funds and tenacity will finally prevail against underfunded councils advised by increasingly cautious planning departments. The town’s heritage is clearly insufficiently defended against such determined developers.
But the community is not necessarily condemned to helplessly watch the continual erosion. The present government is proposing a shift to greater local decision-making, which may or may not contribute to the empowerment of local opinion. Meanwhile, a far greater mobilisation of local opinion seems to be a growing contemporary necessity. The prospect of isolated groups across Stamford contending alone with large outside forces is a bleak one. If people really care about ‘our beautiful town’, then we all need to be more active and united in our protests. The widespread dismay and anger at developers’ proposals is clearly not sufficiently focussed and mobilised at present.
Finally, it has been proposed that a ‘Design Access Panel’ be established for Stamford, modelled on the existing one for Cambridge. This apparently consists of different experts of national standing who consider important planning applications submitted to them, and make recommendations. Their judgments would be highly informed and researched in the way that a conservation officer is unable to do. Though not definitive, the committee’s judgments would add a missing degree of authority to the subsequent planning process, which is often a matter of ill-founded assertions. The idea of establishing some such commission has already been supported by our local MP, Nick Boles, and the Chief Executive of the SKDC. This sad tale has at least shown a pressing need to create a permanent body with an informed overview that could reconcile the future needs for growth and vitality with greater care for our inheritance from the past and the Civic Society would surely have a role to play here.
James Heesom, October 2011
