Statement in written representations (Enforcement)
Submitted by:
Kettering Borough Council
Appeal reference: APP/
L2820/C/11/2153700
LPA enforcement notice
reference:
ENFO/2010/00309
Location of alleged breach:
The Old Greyhound, 22 High Street, Rothwell, Kettering
Description of the site:
The location of the site is as shown edged red on the plan attached at Appendix 1,
which also shows the immediate extent of the Rothwell Conservation Area shaded
pink and nearby listed buildings shaded purple.
The site lies on the eastern side of the High Street, in a prominent location on one
of the principal streets within the conservation area. The site comprises a former
public house, which is currently vacant. The building had been subject to some
alteration over the years but had retained much of its historic fabric, including its
vertical sliding sash windows to the first floor front elevation and its natural slate
roof covering together with a chimney stack adjacent to no.24. The brickwork to the
front had been painted.
The adjoining buildings are a mixture of ages, styles and materials, although there
is a strong vertical emphasis by way of window openings, and natural slate is the
prevalent roofing material. The buildings on the western side of the High Street,
which include new build and refurbished property, have retained much of the
historic character and these have a positive impact upon the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
Reasons why the enforcement notice was issued:
S.72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act)
requires Local Planning Authorities to give special regard to the desirability of
conserving and preserving Conservation Areas. In addition PPS5, policy 27 of the
EMRP and policy 13(o) of the CSS all state the importance of protecting heritage
assets.
The development carried out to the frontage and south elevation of the building is
highly visible from the Conservation Area and the works have resulted in the
removal of original parts of the building, such as the first floor windows and roof
covering, and include rendering of the painted brickwork, large scale remodelling of
the fenestration at ground and first floor level, removal of a chimney and
introduction of concrete roof tiles. These works have removed the vertical
proportions to the window openings, created a roof heavy in appearance contrary to
the appearance of the surrounding roofscape which is characterised by Welsh slate
roofs, and the detailing on the rendering to the south elevation is totally out of
keeping with both the simple appearance of the original building and the
surrounding area where ironstone, brick and simple painted elevations are the
predominant elevation treatments.
The works have therefore degraded the character of the building and in turn the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This development therefore
fails to meet the requirements of The Act.
The works taking place at the rear of the building include re-roofing, replacing the
previous slate roofing with concrete roof tiles, and removing an existing single
storey lean-to and constructing an enlarged single storey extension. The rear of the
building is reasonably well screened from the surrounding area by buildings, garden
boundaries and planting, however there are still views of the site from the approach
to the Church and from rear service areas/car parking associated with neighbouring
properties. In addition, there is a redundant medical centre immediately to the rear
of the site, which is likely to be brought into some use or redeveloped at some
stage (although there are no planning applications at present) and this may result in
opening up views of the rear of the building.
These aspects of the development harm the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
Furthermore, due to the location of the extensions alongside neighbouring
properties the extension and its use may harm the amenities of neighbours.
In the absence of any details of how the extension will be used, or to demonstrate
how the effect of the use of the extension will be mitigated, the use of the extension
may be harmful to the amenities of nearby occupiers.
A building regulations application has been submitted which indicates that a fire
escape is proposed on the side elevation of the extension with an external metal
staircase projecting out above the ground floor extension. Had these works
commenced prior to the service of the enforcement notice then they would have
been included in the alleged breach of planning control. They have not been
undertaken to date, although one of the windows at first floor level on the two storey
outshot has been adapted to a door opening over the flat roofed area and this may
be intended to be used as a fire escape route.
Policies and Plans:
National policy
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment
PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control
Local Policy
East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP)
P. 1 Regional core objections
P. 2 Promoting better design
P. 27 Regional priorities for historic environment
North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (CSS)
P. 13 General sustainable development principles
Statement of case:
Ground (b) Appeal
In the appeal form the appellant states that “some of the breaches mentioned in the
notice have in facts have not been occurred”. (sic). Unreasonably, he does not go
on to explain which aspects of the notice he wishes to contest. Therefore it falls to
the Local Planning Authority to evidence and justify each and every facet of the
alleged breach.
The notice included an elevation drawing from a planning permission dated 1986, a
Google street view image of the front elevation which would date from 2009 and a
photograph taken from an elevated position on 14 February 2006. These were
included to enable the recipient of the notice to be better informed of the design of
the building prior to the carrying out of the development. They do not seek to
illustrate all of the aspects of the allegation.
At Appendix 2 is a series of dated photographs of the building. The LPA invites the
Inspector to refer to these photos in order to determine whether or not the facets of
the alleged breach have occurred as a matter of fact. The photographs have been
dated, although it is noted that the appeal is not proceeding on ground (d).
Comments on the facets of development are listed in the order they are set out in
the enforcement notice.
Replacement roof covering
Former condition:
Reference to Photos 1 and 3 shows the former roof covering for the entire building
to have been natural slate with clay angular ridge tiles cresting the main roof;
Current condition:
Reference to photos 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 shows that the entire roof slopes are now
covered with a grey concrete tile.
Comparison of the photographs evidences that the breach of planning control has
occurred as a matter of fact.
Removal of chimney stacks
Former condition:
Reference to Photos 1 and 3 shows that in the immediate past there were three
chimney stacks on the building, one at the northern end of the main ridge abutting
no. 24; one at the western end of the outshot; and an external breast and stack at
the eastern (rear) end of the outshot.
Current condition:
Reference to photos 8, 11, 13 and 14 shows the complete eradication of all
chimney stacks from the building. (It should be noted that some years ago a stack
had been removed from the southern end of the main ridge; this is not being
attacked by the enforcement notice).
Comparison of the photographs evidences that the breach of planning control
alleged has occurred as a matter of fact.
Alterations to front elevation
Former condition:
Reference to Photos 3, and 6 and the Google image attached to the notice shows
the design of the front of the property in the immediate past. The upstairs windows
were painted softwood double hung sliding sash under cambered arches. The
ground floor windows were single glazed painted softwood and doors were painted
softwood paneled doors in timber frames. Photo 5 shows that the masonry was
painted brickwork, at least to the upper part.
Current condition:
Reference to photos 4 and 13 shows the removal of the vertical openings at first
floor level and two areas of brickwork between these; and their subsequent
replacement with picture windows. The ground floor front walling was removed
almost in its entirety, to be replaced by the current shopfront. It should be noted
that the enforcement notice was issued prior to the installation of the ground floor
“shopfront” so did not take account of this. Remaining masonry at first floor level
has been smooth rendered and painted.
Comparison of the photographs evidences that the breaches of planning control
alleged have occurred as a matter of fact.
Alterations to rear and side elevations
Former condition:
Photos 7 and 8 were taken after the Council became aware that works were being
undertaken at the site. Regrettably these do not show the pre-existing condition of
the building and therefore the requirements of the enforcement notice do not seek
reinstatement of timber windows or openings other than Step 7, where a window
opening has been enlarged to provide a doorway. Photo 3 provides a distant view
of the flank of the main part of the building. Photographs of debris on site on 29
October 2010 suggest that double hung sash windows had been removed from the
rear of the building, but, in view of the lack of hard evidence of their design and
location, the notice does not seek to reinstate them. It is apparent (photo 7) that
the rear elevations were faced in brick. The main flank elevation appears to have
been painted brickwork although it is possible that it could have been smooth
rendered in part.
Current condition:
Reference to photos 12 and 14 shows the current situation of openings and the
mock coursing and pointing marked render. It is clear that the doorway is a new
feature as it would have led to a sheer drop and that the rendering and painting has
been undertaken. Accordingly, it is evident that the breaches of planning control
have occurred as a matter of fact.
Single storey rear extension
The former condition may best be seen in photo 7 which shows the existence of a
small flat roofed extension in the crux of the walls of the rear main wall and flank of
the outshot. The aerial view (photo 1) indicates a lightweight timber structure
beyond this, which may have been a more recently added smoking shelter
(unauthorised). The current condition can most clearly be seen in photo 14.
Comparison of the photographs evidences that the breach of planning control has
occurred as a matter of fact.
The raised platform
There are no detailed photos to illustrate the former condition of the end of the
garden. Inspection of the aerial view (photo 1) indicates that the garden was flat
and laid to mown grass. There is no significant slope within the site and therefore
no indication of any need for terracing to provide level areas.
The current condition (photo 15) shows a significantly raised terrace covering a
large proportion of the remaining rear garden.
Comparison of the photographs evidences that the breach of planning control has
occurred as a matter of fact.
Conclusion
The above indicates conclusively that all matters comprised in the breach of
planning control alleged in the enforcement notice have plainly and unambiguously
occurred. It is unreasonable for the appellant to have suggested otherwise.
Ground (a) appeal
As has been stated in the section on site description, the building was a relatively
unaltered building which retained much of its original fabric and contributed
positively to the character of the conservation area.
The character of the area was last assessed in the Conservation Area appraisal
carried out in March 1978, however descriptions of the Conservation Area are, for
the most part, still relevant today. The appraisal notes that development throughout
the centre is almost all close up to the back of the pavement, comprising two and
three storey properties of a human scale, constructed of ironstone or red brick, with
Welsh slate as the predominant roofing material. In respect of the High Street, it is
noted that the introduction of modern roofing materials detracts from the uniformity
of the Welsh slate. The special character of Rothwell depends upon the scale,
disposition and appearance not only of its significant buildings but also of many of
its lesser buildings which perform vital supporting roles.
Therefore, the Rothwell Conservation Area has a strong character, and works
affecting the appearance of any building within the Conservation Area has the
ability to either conserve and preserve the character and appearance of the area, or
damage it.
The unauthorised development to the frontage and south elevation of the building
fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and have
resulted in the loss of original fabric of the building, and their replacement by items
of inappropriate design and materials.
The works at the rear of the building, despite being less prominent, are visible from
the approach to the Church and from rear service areas/car parking associated with
neighbouring properties and therefore still harm the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area. As the building has not yet been brought into use, it is
unclear to what extent the use of the extended building may harm the amenities of
neighbours.
Any proposal for an external escape staircase cannot be considered as part of this
appeal as the staircase was not in place at the time the enforcement notice was
issued.
Due to their significant effect on the character of the conservation area, the Local
Planning Authority would not be prepared to grant permission for any of the works
to the front or south elevation. In respect of the works to the rear, the design and
materials are inappropriate to the conservation area and the developer has failed to
demonstrate how the extended use of the building would safeguard the amenities
of neighbours. For these reasons the Local Planning Authority considers that
planning permission should not be granted. In the event that the ground (a) appeal
is successful, the Local Planning Authority would not wish to suggest any
conditions to be imposed.
APP/L2820/C/11/2153700
Appendix 1
Location plan showing Heritage Assets
Pink: Conservation Area
Purple: Listed Building
Red: Site Boundary
APP/L2820/C/11/2153700
Appendix 2
Photographs of the site
Photo 1 – Aerial view Summer 2009
Photo 2 – Aerial view superimposed
with red and green lines from
Enforcement Notice
Photo 3 Elevated View 14.02.06
Photo 4 Front elevation Top left
29.10.10
Photo 5 Front elevation Top Right
29.10.10
Photo 6 Front elevation Lower left
29.10.10
Photo 7 Main rear elevation
29.10.10
Photo 8 Outshot rear elevation
29.10.10
Photo 9 Front with render
29.10.10
Photo 10 Front with render
29.10.10