Agenda item

21/04595/LBC

Listed Building Consent for Change of colour on front of building (retrospective)

Brew Bar, Market Square, Haltwhistle, NorthumberlandNE49 0BL

Minutes:

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  She reported that nine representations in support of the application had been received since the committee report had been finalised.  These had been circulated to Members electronically prior to the meeting and were also available to view on the Council’s Public Access website.  A summary of the comments was provided as follows:

 

·        Support for the grey colour of the building.

·        The grey colour complimented the historic environment in which the building sits.

·        The cost of changing the colour back could jeopardise the business which operated from the building.

·        The grey colour would be an easier colour to maintain as it would look fresher for longer than the previous colour.

·        The building was well-presented and the business a well-kept establishment.

·        There were other businesses within the market place and wider locality which were not well-maintained.

·        The Brew Bar had a positive impact on the town and contributed to the vibrancy of the market place.

·        The business offered something different and unique in Haltwhistle and was popular with both tourists and local residents.

·        There was currently a variety of facades and colours within the surrounding street scene.

 

Councillor Michael Ridley spoke on behalf of Haltwhistle Town Council.  He highlighted the following:

 

·        As elected members they were the voice of the people on the street.

·        The response from the people of Haltwhistle to the external changes of the Brew Bar building had been very positive as it had brightened up the Market Square.

·        People going to church have made comments about the calming colour and asked if the east side of the building was also to be painted.

·        The Town Council has no objection to the colour or the application.

·        Tourists and the people of Haltwhistle loved it.

·        Whilst it had been commented that the paint did not let the building breathe, the paint being waterproof would extend the life of the building as water had previously soaked in.

 

Mr Sam Jackson, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He made the following comments:-

 

·        They had decided to paint the exterior of the building during the first national lockdown when the business had been closed and the future was uncertain.

·        They had obtained the permission of the landlady but at that time had been unaware that listed building consent was also required.

·        The colour had been carefully chosen to compliment the traditional stonework of the building, and tied in well with neighbouring slate roofs, the cobbled road around the marketplace, wrought iron gates of the church and the church itself.

·        The grey colour also reflected the buildings industrial heritage as an old blacksmiths shop, more so than the previous colour.

·        Prior to his tenancy, the building had been previously repainted but not with lime wash paint.

·        The public response to the appearance of the Brew Bar on its reopening had been fantastic.

·        They had created a much needed ambiance in the marketplace supported by food trucks, special events and al fresco seating which in conjunction with the visual appearance of the building gave the town a vibrancy it had lacked for many years.  It had become an institution to a wide demographic of local residents and was also popular with tourists which was of benefit to Haltwhistle.

·        There was no overall colour scheme for business or buildings on the high street or marketplace but a worrying increase in dilapidated ones, a sign of hard times for small businesses.

·        Any action would have a detrimental effect on the Brew Bar and town and jeopardise one of the towns recent success stories.

·        The aforementioned reasons outweighed the less than substantial harm caused by the painting of the Brew Bar.  The building should be left as it was so the marketplace could continue to be as vibrant and welcoming as it was now.

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

 

·        It was the professional opinion of the Built Heritage and Design Officer when she had undertaken a site visit that a plastic based paint had been used.

·        A limewash paint would enable the building to breathe.

·        The use of a plastic based paint was harmful to the historic fabric of the building as it created an impermeable barrier which did not allow moisture to travel and would allow the building to deteriorate over time.

·        It was confirmed that enforcement action was being pursued at several other premises in the town for similar reasons.

·        The removal of the plastic based paint was not a matter which the committee needed to be concerned about.  The issue under consideration was the harm caused to the Grade II listed building and the failure to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Haltwhistle Conservation Area.

·        It was not appropriate to compare the use of silicone when treating damp in properties.  Different methods were recommended to preserve stone buildings.  Use of limewash was the most successful method of preserving a traditional building in the long term.

·        The listing describes the marketplace elevation as white although it was not necessary that it remained white as there were variations of colour in the nearby street scene.  Other buildings in the marketplace and Conservation Area were white or cream.  A light coloured natural limewash would be appropriate for the traditional character of the area.

·        Officers were unable to confirm the reason for the investigation and enforcement action.

·        They did not have the resources to have consultee officers at every meeting and the officers availability had not been a reason not to bring the matter to the meeting.

·        The Conservation Area Character Appraisal set out the description of the Grade II listed building.  The question was whether the use of the plastic based grey paint preserved a designated heritage asset.  The colour was not natural with a modern appearance which altered the traditional appearance of the building.

·        Use of a plastic paint was vapor impermeable and would eventually peel off like plastic whereas limewash was gritty and permeable.

 

Councillor Dale proposed acceptance of the recommendation to refuse Listed Building Consent.  This was seconded by Councillor Scott.

 

Several members, whilst agreeing that the appearance of the building was not unattractive, they were concerned about the long term impact that the use of the plastic based paint would have on the structure.  Others were worried about the damage possibly caused by removal of the paint and unhappy that the Built Heritage and Design Officer was not in attendance so they could ask further questions and receive her guidance on technical matters.

 

Some members supported the recommendation that had been made by the officer given the listed building status and did not want the Council’s conservation policy undermined.

 

It was then proposed by Councillor Riddle that the application should be deferred as he did not think a decision should be made that evening.  This was seconded by Councillor Sharp.

 

The Solicitor reminded the committee that the substantive motion needed to be dealt with prior to consideration of subsequent motions.

 

Councillor Dale agreed to withdraw her motion that the Listed Building Consent be refused and instead proposed that the application be deferred.  Councillor Scott agreed and seconded deferral.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED for further advice and information from the Built Heritage and Design Officer.

Supporting documents: