Agenda item

Listed Building Consent for Change of colour on front of building (retrospective) Brew Bar, Market Square, Haltwhistle, Northumberland NE49 0BL.

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

The Development Management Area Manager (West) referred to the significant debate on the application at the previous meeting and confirmed that some additional information had been circulated to members from the Built Heritage and Design Officer who was in attendance.  She stated that answers could be provided in response to the information emailed by the applicant to Members during the question part of the meeting.  She confirmed that the Council wanted to work with the applicant who had not been aware that consent had been required when they carried out the work.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.

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

·        The building had been painted prior to their redecoration.

·        Literature from Historic England (page 23, scenario 3): stated

“Redecoration with impermeable paints, except where the building is already painted with impermeable paint, is not a like-for-like replication and needs LBC (Listed Building Consent).”

·        The Committee needed to be made aware that not enough emphasis had been put on this and needed to be made aware.

·        They were disappointed that the current committee report did not include information he had provided, namely a professional building report, supporting literature from Historic England and additional comments.

·        The application had been considered as if this was the first time the building had been painted since its original finish which was incorrect and confirmed by a professional.

·        It was therefore irrelevant what paint type they had used as the building had already been painted over its original finish.

·        Concern that the decision was focused on something which it seemed did not require consent.

·        The only issue under debate should be the paint colour.  At the previous meeting there was almost unanimous agreement that the building looked great, a view supported by Haltwhistle Town Council and the people of Haltwhistle themselves.  This clearly proved a public benefit which far outweighed the ‘less than substantial harm caused.

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

·        Listed building consent had not been obtained previously when the ‘plastic based’ paint had previously been applied.  Permission would not be required if the building had been painted for upkeep or maintenance.  As permission had not been sought previously, enforcement action could be taken at any time against the current owner of the building.

·        It was suggested that due to the delicate nature of stone, the paint would need to be removed by hand with tools.  It was acknowledged that it would be challenging, costly and time consuming to remove.  ‘Sandblasting’ the front of the building to remove the paint would not be appropriate.  The officers were not stonemasons and unable to offer further guidance on the technique for paint removal which would need to be sought by the applicant.

·        3 similar cases had recently been investigated in Haltwhistle with consistent approach regarding enforcement action.  One building had been changed back to an appropriate colour and the other was ongoing.

·        There was a maximum period of 10 years for enforcement action against planning regulations.  There was no maximum time frame for contraventions of Listed Building rules as action could be taken at any point in time.

·        Information regarding complaints leading to enforcement action were confidential.

·        The advice from Historic England was that Listed Building Consent was not required for repairs if the same type of paint and same colour were to be used.  Permission was required in this case as a different type of paint and different colour had been used and permission had not been obtained.

·        If information was provided to officers regarding possible unauthorised paint used on other buildings, they would be investigated.  However, if buildings were not listed, they might not have required permission.

·        The report provided by the applicant did not specify the type of masonry paint they said had been used of which there were different types.  The implication was that acrylic paint had been painted over a layer of acrylic paint.

·        Some photographs in the powerpoint slides depicted examples of the damage caused to stonework following application of impermeable paint to other historic buildings where water had collected at vulnerable joints.  Moisture behind the paint would vaporise leading to the paint blistering and flaking and further damage from freeze thaw action.  Use of impermeable paint could also lead to internal dampness within the building.

·        A small number of higher status buildings in the town had been painted in bolder/darker colours.  This building had originally been finished with limewash as a traditional approach to protecting masonry from exposure to rainwater and frost damage where poorer quality stone had been used.  The building was described as off-white in the listing entry.  The grey colour was modern in appearance whereas limewash tended to be off-white or cream or earthy tones from natural based pigments.

·        Officers were unaware of sources of grants which the applicant could access.  Once a decision on the application was taken, officers would be happy to do what they could do assist the applicant.

·        There was photographic evidence which demonstrated that the grey paint was flaking although it was not extensive across the front elevation.

·        The damage from the use of permeable paint would be cumulative and take time and was based on scientific knowledge of how materials and buildings reacted.

·        If the application was refused, there could be flexibility regarding time limits of enforcement action which had to be reasonable and justified.  The timescale for removal of the paint might be longer than usual due to the nature of the work which would be weather dependent.

·        The committee had the following options:

-       The application be granted with the existing paint type and colour be approved and retained.  Permission would be needed in the future if the colour was to be changed.

-       The application be granted with a condition to remove the paint and reapply a suitable agreed paint within a certain period.

·        If Members wished to approve the application, they would need to conclude that the public benefit outweighed the harm identified.  If Members considered that the building was a community asset which contributed to the economic viability of the town, then approval of permission would not necessarily set a precedent when determining other perhaps similar applications.

·        Application of additional layers of plastic based paints would likely compound the problem of the stonework not being able to breathe.

·        It was thought unlikely that a mineral based paint would adhere or bind to the surface, if applied on top of a plastic based paint.

·        Whilst Councillors familiar with the premises believed the building not to have been painted internally, the officers were concerned that as the fabric had been sealed externally with the use of a plastic based paint, it would affect the ability of the building to breathe and increase moisture levels.

·        If consent were granted, inclusion of a condition requiring a formal application regarding a change of colour in the future could be possible, although if a plastic based paint was approved once it was suggested that it would be difficult to refuse when considered again.

·        If consent was granted, it would be difficult to include an informative regarding future consideration of the removal of the plastic-based paint and assistance.  The applicant was present at the meeting and aware of the suggestion about seeking assistance for grants to help him with the cost.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed that Listed Building Consent be granted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  He discussed with officers whether the wording of conditions could be delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair or whether the application should be ‘minded to approve’ but deferred for conditions to be approved by the committee.

The Development Management Area Manager (West) reminded the committee that this was a retrospective application and therefore any conditions would be few and not be unduly onerous.  This was also the second time the application had been to committee.

The Solicitor referred to the test that any conditions had to be reasonable and proportionate.  She also asked the Councillor to state the reasons for his proposal which was contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Hutchinson proposed that Listed Building Consent be granted with the wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Chair.  He stated that he was concerned that the removal of the paint would cause damage to the building and be a detriment to the town if the cost of the work caused the business to close.  He also stated that he proposed that the existing grey colour be approved and not changed.

The Development Management Area Manager (West) explained that if members were of the view that the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset was outweighed by the benefit to the public as the premises were an asset to the community and they were concerned that the cost of work could affect the economic viability of the business and thereafter the town.

Councillor Sharp seconded Councillor Hutchinson’s proposal that consent be granted as it was supported by residents and the Town Council and the only objection was from Building Conservation.

Whilst some members were concerned about the damage to the stonework if the applicant was required to remove the paint, others did not think the colour was suitable but did not want to compound the problem with another layer of paint.  Reference was also made to the reasons for conservation area designations and listed building status and that these should be upheld.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -

FOR: 3; AGAINST: 9; ABSTENTION: 0.

The motion failed.

Councillor Dale proposed the officer’s recommendation that Listed Building Consent be refused which was seconded by Councillor Fairless-Aitken.

In answer to a question, the Development Management Area Manager (West) stated that conditions could not be included if the decision was that consent be refused.  However, officers were aware of the views expressed by members and would ensure that the applicant was given sufficient time for the work to be carried out.  She also suggested that in response to concerns regarding possible damage to the stonework from the paint removal, the applicant could be asked to work a sample area to enable the position to be monitored and reviewed.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 3; ABSTENTION: 0.

RESOLVED that Listed Building Consent be REFUSED for the reason set out in the report.