PRESERVATION THROUGH NEW PURPOSE – CADLINGTON ESTATE
Around 20 members enjoyed an interesting afternoon learning about and visiting the
RTPI award-winning Cadlington House Estate in Blendworth, Hampshire, courtesy of
the owner, Kim O’Brien, and sponsors Bryan Jezeph Consultancy, on 18th July.
Ron Tate chaired the event and invited attendees at the outset to identify “projects
and problems” relevant to the afternoon’s discussions. Suggestions included “the
timescale of enabling development”, “Section 106 agreements”, “initial surveys”,
“Haslar Hospital, Gosport” and “Ranmore Manor, Guildford”.
Bryan Jezeph, the planning consultant for the development, then kicked off the
presentations. Bryan advised that enabling development is both time-consuming and
expensive, and likened the process to a ‘roller coaster, Thorpe Park style’. He
explained that it had taken four years from start to finish to obtain the planning
permission for the redevelopment of the Estate, which includes the conversion of the
Grade II listed main house to three separate dwellings, the conversion of the
coachhouse and stables to two dwellings, the rebuilding of the Orangery as a
separate dwelling and the construction of three new dwellings – a bungalow, an oakframed “barn” and a new classical single-storey Pavillion in the walled garden.
Bryan also explained that the property had previously been owned by Mencap, and
the house and grounds had fallen into a state of disrepair. The property had been
marketed it for £2 million, which was more than the property was actually worth in
that condition. 1,500 sales brochures had been sent out, but only eight bids had
been received, all conditional on permission being granted for substantial
development on the site. Eventually a local resident and property developer, Kim
O’Brien, purchased the property and engaged Huw Thomas as her architect.
Huw then took up the story, explaining that whilst the usual approach is to divide
large houses into apartments, the horizontal separation is difficult due to fire and
noise regulations. Hence his idea of dividing the house into three units vertically,
which resulted in very little alteration to the fabric of the house. The classical
Pavillion had been designed so that it would not protrude above the walls of the
walled garden.
John Townsend, Principal Conservation Officer with East Hampshire District Council,
gave the local planning authority’s perspective. He explained that the primary
objective of the Council had been to find a suitable use to ensure the full and proper
repair of the main house and heritage assets. The Council accepted early on that
enabling development would be required, but had rejected a previous proposal from
another developer for a 60-bed care home on the site. It also rejected the first
application submitted by the current owner, as it was not satisfied that the amount of
development proposed was appropriate – the concern was that the proposed
scheme had insufficient development to deliver the necessary benefits. As such it
failed to meet English Heritage’s guidance on enabling development.
The subsequent application was accompanied by a fuller and more robust financial
case, which gave the District Council greater confidence about the financial viability
of the proposals. The Council engaged consultants (Bryan Jezeph had identified the
lack of viability expertise in planning departments as an issue) and worked very
closely with English Heritage. The second application was permitted, subject to a
Section 106 agreement that required the restoration of the house, outbuildings and
garden walls – the house before any enabling development could take place and the
rest within six months. The development was progressing well, with the house,
outbuildings and conservatory restored as required.
John highlighted that being an applicant project-led scheme all the way through had
been very helpful, as had having a good professional team from the outset. John
also emphasised the importance of the delivery of the scheme, welcoming the use of
top quality craftsmen, and noted that agreements were more flexible than conditions.
The owner and applicant, Kim O’Brien, described herself as a “houseaholic” and
explained that the project was very much a personal crusade. She had spent six
months researching the history of the house and had offered a lot of things in the
S.106 agreement to demonstrate to the planners her seriousness and genuineness.
Kim noted the helpfulness of David Brock of English Heritage and had gained 100%
support from East Hampshire District Council, including an extension of time for the
completion of the S.106 agreement. Kim recommended the use of “one man band”
craftsmen because then you knew exactly who would be doing the work.
During the question and answer session that followed the presentation, it was
confirmed that English Heritage had not given any steer on the design approach for
the Pavillion (Huw Thomas had originally proposed a contemporary design but Kim
O’Brien had preferred a classical approach). Bryan Jezeph would have liked greater
involvement from English Heritage, but it concentrated on Grade I and Grade II*
buildings. Ron Tate suggested that, as a general principle, the applicant and the
local planning authority should trust each other’s professionals’ opinions. One
attendee noted that the purchase price of the property was a critical element in the
equation – had Mencap marketed the property at only £1 million, perhaps there
would have been no need for enabling development.
Following a very pleasant (and fortunately dry) stroll around the Estate and village,
during which materials, the management arrangements and covenants were
particular points of discussion, attendees split into two discussion groups. Both then
gave feedback to the others. A number of points were raised:
 This was an unusual situation in that the appellant was very personally
committed to the development and was willing to accept a lower profit as a
result.
 This high level of commitment worked in her favour with the District Council.
 How can a fair price for the property be determined ?
 There is a need for independent advice to local planning authorities.
 Enabling development proposals should start by concentrating on the
character of the building and determining both what needs to be conserved
and what level of development would be acceptable without destroying its
character ? Would that level of development be economically viable ?
 Need to deliver quality.
 Curtilage and setting are important as well as a building itself.
 Understanding English Heritage’s guidance on enabling development is not
easy.
 Is it necessary to have enabling development policies in LDFs ?
 Community support is very helpful in obtaining planning permission.
 Costings are key – the profit issue is difficult but important.
 A client needs to be clear about what s/he wants and consultants need to give
clear advice.
 Collaborative working is ideal.
The afternoon was brought to a conclusion with thanks to the speakers, Ron Tate
and Bryan Jezeph Consultancy.
Martin Small