Addendum: Members will recall that the consideration of the planning and listed
building consent applications was deferred at the last meeting to enable members to
visit the site.
The original officer report is reproduced below for information.
1.
Site Description
1.1
Gledstone Hall is a large house set in its own grounds in open countryside to the
north of the village of West Marton. The house was built 1922-1926 by Sir Edwin
Lutyens for Sir Amos Nelson and is a grade II* listed building. It is noted in the listing
description that this was “one of the last houses of its size to be built from new by
Lutyens. It has been called one of his finest and most sensitive houses”.
2.
Proposal
2.1
Planning permission and listed building consent is sought to erect fencing and gates
to the west and east entrances to the main forecourt in front of the house; and to the
west side of the house. The existing ‘decorative’ gate piers would be utilised in
respect of the forecourt.
2.2
Initially the proposals for the forecourt involved only the west entrance. However,
following consultation responses from English Heritage, The Lutyens Trust; and the
Twentieth Century Society; a revised scheme has been submitted to also include the
east entrance (to maintain symmetry). The revised proposals also contain less
ornate detailing in the design of the railings and gates.
2.3
The proposals are made to “Prevent illicit use of the access and private parking area”
and are intended to improve security.
3.
Planning History
3.1
No directly relevant planning history.
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
PPG1, PPG15.
4.2
North Yorkshire Structure Plan: Policy E4.
4.3
Craven District Local Plan: Policy BE5 “Alterations to Listed Buildings”; BE7 “ Setting
of Listed Buildings”; BE9 Parks and Gardens of Historic or Landscape Interest”.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
No comments received.
6.
Consultations
6.1
North Yorkshire County Council (Highways Authority): No objections, subject to there
being no encroachment onto highway boundaries (none required).
6.2
English Heritage: In respect of the original proposals:“English Heritage appreciates the owner’s requirement for improved security, but has
concerns about the design of gate proposed and its location. The gate piers are part
of the Lutyens design for the house, and it is not clear as to whether it was ever the
intention to place gates in this location or not. The design proposed is intended to
‘replicate’ the existing gates and screen, but do not come close in terms of the quality
of the originals. It would obviously be incredibly costly to commission new authentic
replica gates for the vacant piers. It is the view of English Heritage that the
appropriate compromise would be to locate a very plain gate and fencing (metal with
a dark painted finish) in a different location away from the piers. In this way it will be
possible to meet the need for security around the property without compromising the
special interest and visual appearance of the Grade II* building.”
6.3
The Lutyens Trust: In respect of the original proposals:“We can appreciate the problems inherent in the separate disposal of the East and
West Lodges and the inability to use the designed axial approach from the north. We
recognise that security concerns have generated the perceived need for additional
fencing and gates.
However, there appears to be a degree of incompatibility between the location and
design of what is proposed, and the design and layout of the approaches to the
house. The west entrance into the main courtyard, with its free-standing piers, and
rusticated ends to the screen walls, is matched by a similar arrangement at the east
leading to the former kitchen wing, now shown as Rosebank Cottage. The early
photographs of Gledstone Hall indicates that neither opening was originally gated. It
appears to conflict with the symmetry of the courtyard to gate one opening and not
the other. The design of the gates and screen appears to be based on that of the
main wrought-iron screen and gates, which close the northern boundary of the
courtyard. The sketch on the photograph in the brochure is rather indistinct however.
I believe that had Lutyens been asked to design gates for what was certainly a
subsidiary position, a simpler design would have been adopted, and both, or neither,
openings would have been done, to ensure consistency.
The design for the gates and screen leading to the garage court are very different,
and appear to be based on the standard products of the firm concerned. I regret that
I find them unsuitable, and unnecessarily complex, with the arched and upswept tops
of the screens and gates fundamentally at odds with the simplicity and refined
proportions of Lutyen’s stonework. This proposal should be radically reconsidered.
6.4
The Twentieth Century Society: In respect of the original proposals:“The proposed fencing would clearly have a most negative impact on the listed
property and are therefore not acceptable.”
Revised Plans
6.5
Further to discussions with the applicant amended proposals have been submitted in
response to the above consultation replies. These include some options – referred to
in the consultation responses.
6.6
The Lutyens Trust and Twentieth Century Society whilst not “enthusiastic” about the
location of the railings and gates, do not object to the simplest of the design options
providing the height is the best proportion. The comments of English Heritage were
not available at the time of the preparation of this report and will be reported verbally
at the meeting.
7.
Representations
7.1
The occupants of both the East and West Lodges have objected in separate letters to
the proposals on the grounds of obstruction to established rights of way. However,
such legal matters are outside the scope of the planning and listed building consent
applications, and the objectors have been advised that any approval of consent
granted would not prejudice their rights to maintain access. One objector also refers
to harm to the listed building because new pillars and gateposts would be required –
however, this is a false assumption.
8.
Summary of principle planning issues
8.1
Whether the proposals would adversely effect the special architectural or historic
interest of the building, or harm its setting.
9.
Analysis
9.1
All parties have accepted the desirability of improving security, and it is accepted that
there are no other effective locations for security fencing. (The legal position of the
rights of way to the West and East Lodges would be a separate civil matter). Further
to the initial comments of English Heritage, the Lutyens Trust and The Twentieth
Century Society, the applicants have agreed to revise their proposals. The amended
scheme maintains the symmetry to the forecourt by including gates to the east
entrance, and substantially simplifies the design of the ironwork.
9.2
It is considered that the revised proposals would not be so harmful to the character
and appearance of the forecourt as to have an adverse impact on the special interest
of the building or its setting. The listed gardens are not affected by the proposals.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
It is recommended that the Secretary of State is informed that the Council is mindful
to approve the revised listed building consent application [in accordance with S.13 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990], and that the
Committee approve the revised planning application.
11.
Summary of Conditions
11.1
Revised plans.
11.2
Finished colour of all metalwork to be agreed prior to installation.