Agenda item

The Chairman of the Planning Committee agreed to hear the officers report and member debate in relation to items 25/0086/LA and 25/0087/LBC, as one, as both items related to the same development.

 

The Planning Officer outlined planning application 25/0086/LA South Lodge, Preston Park, Yarm Road Demolition of existing lodge, erection of metal structure, artwork, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works and 25/0087/LBC  South Lodge, Preston Park, Yarm Road Listed building consent for the demolition of existing lodge, erection of metal structure, artwork, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

 

The applications sought planning permission and listed building consent for the demolition of South Lodge, the erection of a metal structure artwork, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

 

The proposed development would incur the loss of a curtilage listed of South Lodge. It was considered that South Lodge was of low architectural importance and its historical significance was derived from its ties to Preston Hall. On balance, its loss was marginally outweighed by mitigation and public benefits.

 

It had been demonstrated that the proposed development would enhance the visitor experience of visiting for local residents and tourists from further afield and, in turn, strengthen the attraction’s local distinctiveness and unique history of the Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR) on the Railway’s bicentenary.

 

Revised plans had been received through the planning process following concerns around the proximity of the proposed development to extant earthworks of the S&DR Railway. The proposed development now indicated that the extent of the groundworks would be purely contained within the existing footprint of South Lodge and any undiscovered earthworks within the grounds of the Site were considered to be low in terms of their overall understanding of the S&DR. Suitable controls had been recommended via planning condition to mitigate any harm that may be presented to the extant earthworks.

 

Overall, it was considered that the development comprised sustainable development, when considered in the context of the NPPF when taken as a whole. Furthermore, whilst the development would result in harm to the setting of the existing Grade II listed Preston Hall, this was considered to be less than substantial, which would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

 

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

 

Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

 

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

 

For application 25/0086/LA, the Planning Officers report concluded, the proposed scheme was considered a very balanced case. On balance, it was considered that the public benefits arising from the scheme would marginally outweigh the harm resulting from the loss of the building, therefore the application was recommended for approval for the reasons as detailed within the main report.

 

For planning application 25/0087/LBC, the Planning Officers report concluded that the scheme was considered that the works were acceptable and would not adversely impact on the historic fabric of the building. The proposals were considered to conserve the character, appearance and significance of the building and would not adversely impact on it as a building of special historic interest. The application was therefore recommended for approval for the reasons as detailed within the main report

 

Members were presented with update reports for applications 25/0086/LA and 25/0087/LBC  South Lodge, Preston Park, Yarm Road which since the Officers report detailed further comments which had been submitted by Tees Archaeology and the Applicant’s planning agent on the proposed scheme.

 

In terms of application 25/0086/LA the comments received did not alter the original recommendation of approval with conditions and any new issues raised were addressed within the update report. No conditions were set to be altered within the applications as they principally related to conditions set out within the counterpart listed building consent application.

 

In terms of application 25/0087/LBC  the comments received did not alter the original recommendation of approval with conditions and any issues raised were addressed within the update report. Conditions had been altered since the original report, which had been worked on and agreed through written dialogue with the Local Planning Authority, the Applicant’s planning agent, the Applicant, the Historic Buildings Officer and Tees Archaeology. Full details were contained within the update report.

 

There were no Applicants, Agents or Members of the public in attendance at the meeting.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows: -

 

- It was felt that the officer’s report contained many contradictions, such as highlighting that the demolition of South Lodge would lead to substantial harm but then recommending that the site be demolished.

 

- Discussion was had around page 57 within the agenda pack which stated “Less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance and setting of Preston Hall” which was in accordance within paragraph 215 of the NPPF and then page 68 which went on to highlight the significance of South Lodge and its listing, which Members felt was contradictory.

 

- It was stated within the officer’s report that ‘Where there was evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision’; however it appeared this heritage asset had been deliberately neglected by the Local Authority, so how could South Lodge be recommended for demolition?

 

- The public benefits should South Lodge be demolished were low and not substantial as stated within the officers’ report, therefore the application should be refused.

 

- There was no evidence contained within the officer’s report to say that the Council had explored the preservation of South Lodge for future use and whether the costs associated with the demolition could be used for restoration.

 

- What were the implications regards future access for neighbours residing in North Lodge as well as access during the construction phase should the scheme be approved?

 

- A request was made that should the scheme gain approval access for North Lodge be signposted to highlight to visitors of Preston Hall / Park be aware that the occupiers of North Lodge had access rights.

 

- Clarity was sought as to whether South Lodge was listed solely because it was within the curtilage of Preston Hall?

 

- Heritage assets needed to be developed and conserved. South Lodge was developed when the Ropner Family still had Preston Hall. South Lodge should be kept at all costs.

 

- Concerns were raised regards the proposed hardstanding encroaching on parkland.

 

- Suggestions were made that if South Lodge was brought back into use community  groups could use it such as the Model Railway Group who were currently looking for new premises.

 

- There was no structural report, and if there were structural issues then Members should have been provided with evidence.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:

 

- Officers acknowledged that there was a fine balance between the harm and benefits of the scheme, however when looking at the overall balance, the impact was of low significance. The Applicant had taken into account the associated impact and had revised plans in accordance with paragraph 75 of the NPPF to protect earthworks which would be within the footprint of South Lodge. Suitable controls had been recommended via planning condition to mitigate any harm that may be presented to the extant earthworks. Officers were therefore in favour to demolish South Lodge as on balance the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

 

- The cost of restoration was significant; however, this had not been considered.

 

- There would still be access for North Lodge. In terms of access rights to North Lodge during construction, if documents were available to say they had protected right of access, then this should be maintained, or alternative access would be provided.

 

- Officers explained that signage to indicate occupiers of North Lodge had right of access was not a planning consideration however officers’ would ask the relevant team to investigate possibilities.

 

- The building itself had no architectural value and was purely listed due to its association with Preston Hall.

 

- Officers recognised the fine balance between the harm and overall benefits and did not take these decisions lightly, however the benefits on balance outweighed the harm, and the proposed artwork would enhance the visitor experience.

 

- Preston Hall and its grounds had changed over the years, it was a home now it was a municipal building,

 

- In terms of hardstanding, this would not encroach on parkland.

 

- It was confirmed that there was a structural report within the application.

 

A vote took place and the application was refused.

 

 

RESOLVED that 25/0086/LA South Lodge, Preston Park, Yarm Road Demolition of existing lodge, erection of metal structure, artwork, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works be refused for the following reasons:

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would adversely impact on the curtilage listed heritage asset and subsequently the character and significance of the grade II listed Preston Hall. No clear and convincing justification has been provided to justify the loss of the heritage asset nor is the resulting harm outweighed by the associated public benefits, as required by paragraph 214 of the NPPF. It is considered that the proposed works would therefore cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and would therefore fail to conserve the asset in a manner appropriate to its significance and conflict with Policies SD5 (1J & 3), HE2(4) and HE3 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 214 of the NPPF.