Carol Ashman
Planning Department
Wychavon District Council
Civic Offices
Queen Elizabeth Drive
Pershore
Worcs., WR8
Direct dial: 0121 625 6848
8 May 2010
Dear Mrs Ashman,
APPLICATION W/09/02814/LB
PROPOSED DISMANTLING OF CONSERVATORY, WOODFIELD HOUSE,
OMBERSLEY
Further to our telephone conversation of 4 May English Heritage has now had the
opportunity to read the Stainburn-Taylor report dated 8 April 2010 on the condition of
the conservatory.
We note that the report concurs with the views of the applicants’ structural engineers
and the previous English Heritage assessment that the timber frame below roof level
is incapable of repair and retention. The report does however point out that much of
the glass and glazing components (which we take to include the wrought iron trusses
as well as the bronze or brass glazing bars) are in good condition and potentially
capable of careful salvage following the methodology set out at paragraph 9.3. The
report does not dispute that the conservatory is of historic interest and an interesting
and integral part of the character and appearance of the listed building.
In the light of these conclusions and in particular that much of the conservatory is
capable of salvage (and hence reuse) English Heritage restates its objection to the
application for total removal of the conservatory. Policy HE9 of PPS5 makes clear
that there is a presumption in favour of keeping heritage assets and that, once lost
they cannot be replaced. Substantial harm or loss of a grade II asset should be
exceptional: HE9.2 makes clear that applications resulting in substantial harm or loss
should be refused consent unless it can be demonstrated that retention of the asset
prevents reasonable use of the site; that there is no viable use or user for the asset;
or that there are other benefits which outweigh retention of the asset. This case has
not been made. The conservatory is of historic and architectural significance in its
own right and an important part of the character of the listed house. While the
applicant has shown that much of the structure is beyond repair it has not been
demonstrated that it is wholly beyond salvage and repair or should be permanently
removed. The permanent loss of the conservatory would diminish the interest and
historic significance of the listed house.
English Heritage would not object to a revised application for the careful dismantling
of the structure as part of a wider scheme of renovation. This would include the
salvage for reuse of the roof components and glazing and the total removal after
recording of all the present joinery to address its current dangerous and irreparable
condition prior to introducing new framing, and the reinstatement and repair the roof
structure. Repair and retention of the conservatory in this way would help maintain
the overall significance of the principal listed house.
English Heritage has not taken legal advice on this matter but it is worth considering
whether in the light of the Shimizu decision this application as submitted can only be
for dismantling or removal of the conservatory rather than for its demolition as it
involves only a part and not the totality of the listed building. This interpretation may
have a bearing on the wording of any decision issued by your Council as well as in
making an assessment of the impact of the works on the overall significance of the
heritage asset.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Taylor
Inspector of Historic Buildings