(d) Further Information (Pages 1209-1220)
Perth and Kinross Council · 12 August 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 12 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
5(ii)(d) LRB-2024-13 LRB-2024-13 22/01959/FLL - Mixed use development comprising alterations to church, relocation of memorial, erection of community centre with sport/education facilities, offices, community café, formation of replacement MUGA, landscaping, parking and associated works, land 30 metres west of St Columba's Episcopal Church, 19 Perth Road, Stanley FURTHER INFORMATION DPEA Decision Notice LBA-240-2029, War Memorial, Perth Road, Stanley, PH1 4NQ DPEA Decision Notice LBA-340-2030, St Columba’s Episcopal Church, 19 Perth Road, Stanley, PH1 4NQ Comments from Planning Officer on DPEA decisions Comments from Agent on DPEA decisions
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR E: dpea@gov.scot T: 0300 244 6668 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Appeal Decision Notice Decision I allow and grant listed building consent subject to the following condition: All of the works detailed in the scope of works in the Listed Building Consent Statement by Lee Boyd shall be carried out and completed as part of the approved works. Reason: To ensure that the listed building is enhanced and preserved. Attention is drawn to the advisory note at the end of this notice. Preliminary matters There is a parallel proposal for planning permission (22/01959/FUL) for a single multi-use building and an outside multi-use games area. Works would be required to the war memorial site in order to accommodate this development and to create a pedestrian and vehicular access. Planning permission was refused and that decision is currently before the council’s local review body for consideration. As part of the development, the St Columba’s Episcopal church hall adjacent to the war memorial would be demolished. That application for listed building consent was also refused by the council and subsequently appealed. My decision on that appeal will be issued separately. The drawings show both the application site and an application area. Having sought clarification from the appellant, I understand that the application area corresponds with the extent of the new pedestrian and vehicular access proposed in the associated planning application. I therefore consider that the application area has little relevance to this appeal. Decision by Trudi Craggs, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Listed building consent appeal reference: LBA-340-2029 • Site address: War Memorial, Perth Road, Stanley, PH1 4NQ • Appeal by Stanley Development Trust against the decision by Perth and Kinross Council • Application for listed building consent (23/01473/LBC) dated 31 August 2023 refused by notice dated 8 December 2023 • The works proposed: alterations to pier and boundary wall • Application drawings: listed in the schedule at the end of this notice • Date of site visit by Reporter: 18 April 2024 Date of appeal decision: 26 June 2024
Page 4
LBA-340-2029 2 Given the works detailed on the plans, I sought clarification on the extent of the listed building. Historic Environment Scotland advised, as set out in its Designation Policy and Selection Guidance, that although it is responsible for designating listed buildings, it is for the council to determine what is covered by the listing including what is listed through curtilage. The council and the appellant are in agreement that the fencing and hedges around the site are not listed. Given the listing, I accept that the listed building does not include these elements. Accordingly, the removal of the hedge and fences and the formation of the gravel path would not require listed building consent. Whether those alterations would have a detrimental impact on the special interest and setting of the listed building is a matter more relevant to the consideration of the planning application. I have taken the description of the proposed works from the council’s decision which was adopted by the appellant in its appeal form. I consider this most succinctly and accurately describes the works that would require listed building consent. Reasoning 1. The determining issue in this appeal is the effect that the works would have on the listed building. In terms of section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, in determining this appeal, I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 2. The council referred to policy 7b) of the National Planning Framework 4 and to policy 27B of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 in its reasons for refusal. It also provided me with a copy of policy 27A of the local development plan. As this is an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent, I am not obliged to consider this matter against the development plan. I have instead had regard to my statutory duty set out above. 3. The site is a first world war memorial dated 1924. It is a category C listed building. The listing designation includes the boundary walls, gatepiers, gates, and rails, describing them as low ashlar boundary walls with inset railings, square plan gatepiers, and two-leaf ironwork gates. 4. From the listing I consider that the listed building’s special historic interest is the detail of the memorial itself and its relationship with St Columba’s Episcopal Church, the church having made a large donation to its erection. Its connection to both world wars and to the fallen soldiers from Stanley is also part of its special interest and historic importance, particularly to those in and from the local area or with connections to Stanley Mill. 5. The works would result in the southernmost pier being relocated around 1.2 metres further north. A short section of the boundary wall of around 70 centimetres and the associated railings between the current and proposed location of the pier would be lost. I do not consider that there is anything remarkable about either the wall or the railings. They make a limited contribution to the building’s special historic interest. Accordingly the loss of the fabric would not be significant and its special historic interest would be preserved. 6. However the walls, railings and gates do contribute to the setting of the listed building. There would be a loss of symmetry; the remaining section of wall would be shorter than that on the other side of the gates. That may be perceptible from the opposite side of the road when looking at the memorial, but I do not consider that it would be noticeable
Page 5
LBA-340-2029 3 when closer to it. The memorial would still be set back from the pavement. The sense of enclosure and separation provided by these elements would not change as a result of the works and accordingly there would be no adverse impact on the setting. 7. Further as set out in the Listed Building Consent Statement by Lee Boyd submitted by the appellant, which details the scope of the works, the existing render on the wall would be made good as would the decoration to the railings. These works would enhance and preserve the listed building. They are not shown on the plans but as they are important elements of the works, I have imposed a condition to ensure that they are carried out as part of the approved works. The council also suggested a condition. However, as I have included a list of the approved application drawings in the schedule at the end of this notice, what it proposed is not necessary. 8. There were four objections to the application. These raised a range of matters including: adverse effect on visual amenity; lack of car parking including disabled parking; loss of trees; removal of the hedges and shrubs; road safety issues; and technical concerns about the proposed access road. These have little relevance to this appeal for listed building consent; they are more relevant to the consideration of the associated application for planning permission mentioned above. 9. There are concerns that the war memorial would no longer be protected or enclosed. The wall, railings, and gates would remain along the front of it. The other elements are not part of the listing. Separately there was a concern that the owner of the memorial had not been traced. I note that although the owner was unknown at the time of the application, an owner has been identified in the appeal form. In any event while listed building consent would give the authorisation required under the 1997 Act, that is separate to any consent that may be required from the owner. The latter is a matter for the appellant. 10. Taking all of the above together, the listed building, its historic interest and its setting would be preserved and to some extent enhanced. I allow the appeal and grant listed building consent. Trudi Craggs Reporter Schedule of drawings Drawing AL(PL)30 Location Plan Drawing AL(PL)31 Existing-Plan-Site Drawing AL(PL)32 Proposed-Plan-Site Drawing AL(PL)33 Existing Street and Southern Elevation Drawing AL(PL)34 Proposed Street and Southern Elevation Advisory note The length of the consent: This listed building consent will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the works have been started within that period. (See section 16 of the Act (as amended))
Page 6
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR E: dpea@gov.scot T: 0300 244 6668 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Appeal Decision Notice Decision I dismiss the appeal and refuse listed building consent. Preliminary matters The statutory address of the listed building is St Columba’s Episcopal Church. The description of the west elevation refers to the church hall and there is further mention of it in the notes. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the hall is listed. Section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 disapplies various sections of that Act to any ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes. One of these sections is section 6 which provides that any works for the demolition of a listed building, or for its alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, must be authorised. I sought views on whether this would apply in this case. Historic Environment Scotland’s Ecclesiastical Exemption guidance states that church halls are not normally considered to be exempt if they are in a separate building. However if the hall is within the same building envelope as the main worship space, such as a basement, it is possible that it will be exempt. Here the church hall is attached to the church but it is not within the same building envelope. They are separate buildings with limited shared fabric. It is not possible to access the hall directly from the church itself. Further the hall is not currently used for ecclesiastical purposes; I understand that it has been disused since 1970. Although for safety reasons I was not able to go inside it at the site inspection, looking through the door, it appeared to be used for storage. Decision by Trudi Craggs, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Listed building consent appeal reference: LBA-340-2030 • Site address: St Columba’s Episcopal Church, 19 Perth Road, Stanley PH1 4NQ • Appeal by Stanley Development Trust against the decision by Perth and Kinross Council • Application for listed building consent (22/02244/LBC) dated 22 December 2022 refused by notice dated 8 December 2023 • The works proposed: demolition of existing church hall • Date of site visit by Reporter: 18 April 2024 Date of appeal decision: 26 June 2024
Page 7
LBA-340-2030 2 The council advised that as the works involve demolition section 54 is not applicable. This reflects Historic Environment Scotland’s guidance which states that listed building consent should always be sought for demolition as a building cannot be used while it is being demolished and as such the ecclesiastical use must have finished before any work starts. Taking all this together, I have concluded that the exemption in section 54 does not apply. There has been considerable debate as to whether the proposal should be assessed as an alteration to or demolition of a listed building. The description in the application form is demolition but the appellant seems to argue that what is proposed is an alteration or ‘selective demolition’. In its appeal form it still described the proposal as demolition and it specifically requested that Historic Environment Scotland be consulted. I note that Historic Environment Scotland only has remit to comment on demolition proposals. It has no remit to comment on applications for alterations to category C listed buildings except where the planning authority is the applicant (which is not the case here). The council’s decision describes the proposal as alterations and part demolition of the listed building. The council’s conservation team advised that the application should be assessed as demolition and the planning officer duly did so, as set out in the report of handling, but did not consult Historic Environment Scotland. Historic Environment Scotland advised that both options are potentially defensible but does not give an opinion on which basis the proposal should be assessed. Its guidance, Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Demolition of Listed Buildings, states that demolition means the total or substantial loss of a listed building. It goes on to say that even if part of a building is to be retained a proposal may still be considered demolition. This would be the case if the proposed works would result in the loss of the majority of the listed building. In this case the entire church hall would be lost, which from the drawings appears to be over half of the listed building. Although the church would remain intact (subject to making good any damage to its fabric in the limited areas where both buildings adjoin), on balance, I find that the works would be demolition rather than alterations. Accordingly, I have assessed the proposal on that basis and have adopted the appellant’s description. There is a parallel proposal for planning permission (22/01959/FUL) to demolish the church hall and erect a single multi-use building, an outside multi-use games area, pedestrian and vehicular access and accessible car parking. Planning permission was refused and that decision is currently before the council’s local review body for consideration. As part of the development, alterations would also be required to the war memorial adjacent to the church. That application for listed building consent was also refused by the council and subsequently appealed. My decision on that appeal will be issued separately. Reasoning 1. The determining issue in this appeal is whether there is justification for the demolition of the listed building. In terms of section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, in determining this appeal, I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 2. The council referred to policy 7b) of the National Planning Framework 4 and to policy 27B of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 in its reasons for refusal. As this is an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent, I am not obliged to consider this
Page 8
LBA-340-2030 3 matter against the development plan, however policy 7b) was useful as was Historic Environment Scotland’s guidance, Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Demolition of Listed Buildings. 3. The guidance confirms a strong presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings and an assumption that demolition would only be sanctioned as a last resort when all other feasible options have been discounted. If one of three criteria is met, the loss of a listed building is likely to be acceptable as long as this is clearly demonstrated and justified. The criteria are: the building is no longer of special interest; it is incapable of meaningful repair; or the demolition is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community. The guidance goes on to note that in some cases the repair and reuse of a listed building is not economically viable. 4. Policy 7b) reflects the above guidance albeit there are some differences. It states that demolition would be supported if one of the following criteria is met: (i) the building is no longer of special interest; (ii) the building is incapable of repair and re-use as verified through a detailed structural condition survey report; (iii) repair of the building is not economically viable and there has been adequate marketing for existing and/or new uses at a price reflecting its location and condition for a reasonable period to attract interest from potential restoring purchasers; and (iv) demolition is essential to deliver significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community. 5. St Columba’s church, which opened in 1889, is a category C listed building. The listing provides a brief description of the building and then gives details of each elevation and the interior, highlighting key architectural features. The church hall was built in 1907 and is sited at a right angle to and attached to the rear of the church. The list description describes it as the rubble church hall but there are no other details. From the photographs and my site inspection I note that externally the church hall is a simple building. Other than the stonework around the main door and the internal open timber roof, which is similar to that of the church, the hall has very few architectural features. This is supported by Historic Environment Scotland’s view that its architectural features are of limited interest. 6. The notes to the listing description state that the development of the site was specifically to provide a place of worship for mill workers from England who were required to attend church to retain their employment at Stanley Mills. I therefore consider that the listed building including the hall has historic interest and is still of special interest. 7. The listing carried out in 2002 notes that the church hall was in a poor state of repair. A quinquennial condition survey carried out in February 2016 concluded that the hall was in fairly poor condition suffering from serious structural problems. It recommended that repairs to bulging stonework, the roof structure, the leadwork and the suspended timber floor be carried out. The cost was estimated to be around £70,000 (excluding professional fees and VAT). I understand that none of the recommended works were undertaken. 8. A further structural condition report was carried out in 2023. This also concluded that overall the building is of poor condition for its age and type. The structure is of poor quality and requires extensive remedial works to extend its useful life including the replacement of the suspended timber floor (with adequate ventilation); underpinning the existing masonry walls to provide suitable bearing for the foundations; repointing and partly rebuilding the walls to address movement and cracking; and likely strengthening of the roof to prevent lateral splaying.
Page 9
LBA-340-2030 4 9. Although I could only partially see inside the building on my site inspection, from what I did see I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions of these reports. I accept that substantial works would be required. However the evidence does not demonstrate that the building is incapable of repair and re-use. Even though some of the fabric may have to be replaced or parts rebuilt, neither report indicates that complete reconstruction would be required. Further given the limited architectural features, I consider that the repairs could be done without having a consequential effect on the building’s special interest and therefore in terms of the criteria in the guidance, the building would be capable of meaningful repair. 10. Although there are no costs in the 2023 structural condition report, the appellant has estimated that to bring the hall back into use would cost in the region of £310,000 - £385,000 (excluding VAT). This includes the essential works identified by the survey as well as other works, for example re-wiring, the addition of toilets, thermal improvements, heating, and redecoration. 11. A full schedule of updated costs would have been useful however given the extent of the works that would be required, the estimated cost range does not seem unreasonable. Nevertheless there is no evidence of what the value of the listed building would be once these works have been carried out and therefore no conservation deficit calculation can be made. As such from the evidence before me I am unable to conclude whether the repairs are economically viable or not. 12. The appellant indicated that the Bishop of St Columba’s Episcopal Church has advised that no-one other than the appellant has shown any interest in purchasing the building since 2018. In this context it is not clear what is meant by ‘building’ (whether only the church hall or the whole listed building). Nevertheless from the evidence before me, I do not know whether there would be any interest in the listed building if it was marketed for sale as there is no evidence that any marketing has taken place. 13. The demolition would be required to redevelop an area to the west of the church (including the land on which the church hall is constructed) as a community sports hub. The appellant states that the hall cannot be meaningfully incorporated into the development proposals and is not suitable for re-use as part of the development. While I accept that is likely to be the case and that the development would provide benefits to the wider community, I am not persuaded that but for the demolition of the listed building the community benefits could not be delivered, particularly given the extent of the overall development site. 14. The proposal would therefore not meet any of the criteria in either Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change guidance or policy 7b) of the National Planning Framework 4. Based on the evidence before me, the demolition of the church hall has not been justified. I therefore refuse listed building consent. Trudi Craggs Reporter
Page 10
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: John Williamson Sent: 02 July 2024 15:41 To: CDS Planning Local Review Body Cc: Audrey Brown; Geoff Fogg; Paul Williamson Subject: 22/01959/FLL Stanley Attachments: Decision Notice - dated 26 June 2024_1016085.pdf; LBA-340-2030_20240626_ 141842_5.docx Dear Audrey I refer to the above application which is currently with the LRB and has recently been deferred to await the outcome of an associated Listed Building Consent appeal to the Scottish Government Department of Environmental Appeals (DPEA) for the demolition of the church hall at St Columba’s Episcopal Church. As noted from the attached decision notice the DPEA has dismissed the appeal for the demolition of the church hall and therefore listed building consent has been refused. The planning application which is currently with the LRB for the erection of a community centre relies on the demolition of the church hall to accommodate the development as is noted on the submitted plans. As listed building consent for the demolition of the church hall has been refused it is not possible to develop the community centre as is currently proposed. It is considered to be important to point this fact out to members of the LRB. As discussed with PKC Legal Services you may also wish to seek comments from the appellant’s agent on implications of this appeal decision. I trust the above provides the view of the Planning Authority on this matter and that members of the LRB can be informed of the above. Should you require anything further please let me know. Kind Regards John Williamson Planning Oicer Economy, Development and Planning Development Management Perth and Kinross Council Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD
Page 11
1 CDS Planning Local Review Body From: Euan FS Pearson Sent: 12 July 2024 04:37 To: Cc: CDS Planning Local Review Body; Subject: Re: LRB-2024-13 | 21 Perth Road, Stanley PH1 4NQ. Hello Danny The Local Review Body has requested the Appellant’s comments on Appeal Decisions LBA-340- 2029 and LBA-340-2030. LBA-340-2029 was allowed and Scottish Ministers granted listed building consent for Alterations to Pier and Boundary Wall of the War Memorial. The Appellant accepts this decision and asks that the LRB do so too. LBA-340-2030 was dismissed and Scottish Ministers refused consent to demolish the Church Hall. The Appellant is aggrieved by this and asks that the LRB not agree with the Reporter’s conclusions. Perth & Kinross Council is the planning authority. The determination of applications for planning permission is the exclusive remit of Councillors (having regard to any scheme of delegation). Councillors are elected to serve constituents/local communities, and take decisions in their interests, (in accordance with the law). The Local Review Body (LRB) has been asked to review the decision taken by Officers to refuse planning permission for a single multi-use building with outside multi-use games area, pedestrian & vehicular access, and accessible car parking. This community facility is much needed in Stanley and has the support of local people: hence why it is being progressed by Stanley Development Trust, a registered charity. In undertaking its review, the law requires the Local Review Body (as the decision maker) to have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In coming to its own views on this, regarding demolition of the Church Hall, the LRB is not bound by the decision taken in Appeal LBA-340-2030 nor the personal views of the Reporter. The Appellant considers that the LRB, in exercising its legal right, as decision maker, has a number of propositions to consider, on the matter of demolition. (i) The Reporter considers that the Hall forms part of the Listing. She states, unequivocally, that the Hall is attached to the Church. Therefore, both MUST be included in the same ‘envelope’. Ergo, as the Church is in use for worship, Ecclesiastical Exemption under Section 54 of the Act applies. The Hall is used for the storage of the Congregation's possessions, including items used in worship. The Reporter DID NOT enter the Hall, and did not examine its contents. (ii) The Reporter considers that the Hall is listed on the basis that it is mentioned in Historic Scotland’s “notes” taken in 2002. The building that is listed, by law, is that named in the statutory address. That is St. Columba’s Episcopal Church. Therefore, the Hall is not listed. If it was, the statutory address would have been entered as “St. Columba’s Episcopal Church and Hall”.
Page 12
2 (iii) The Reporter contradicts Herself, stating that She is not required to consider the matter in the context of the Development Plan (or anything else) but then proceeded to do so. The legal test, here, is that of “desirability of preserving”. The LRB can disregard Her ‘checklisting’. She has chosen to reference the National Planning Framework and Historic Environment Scotland guidance, as these were written by Scottish Government divisional/agency staff, and She is paid by the Scottish Government. The reality is that the Hall is in poor condition and beyond economic repair. It is not worth keeping. The fact that the Scottish Episcopal Church has not openly marketed the Hall for sale, is of no relevance to this. The Church is of historic interest as employees of Stanley Mills were required to attend & worship within its walls. That is not the case with the Hall. In terms of the 1st Proposition, if Ecclesiastical Exemption is applied, then listed building consent is not required. Planning permission would be sufficient to allow the proposed development to commence. In terms of the 2nd Proposition, if the Hall is not considered part of the listed building, then listed building consent is not required. Planning permission would be sufficient to allow the proposed development to commence. In terms of the 3rd Proposition, if the LRB considered that demolition was justified, Stanley Development Trust would reapply for listed building consent. Presumably, any such subsequent decision would follow this one. Decisions taken by the Local Review Body are challengeable in the Courts. The Appellant has not read anything, anywhere, that suggests that the Scottish Government or Historic Environment Scotland would take such action, if the Local Review Body granted planning permission, in any of these circumstances. Regards Euan Euan FS Pearson MRTPI MRICS