Council rejects demolition of historic house
RESIDENTS WERE ‘SEETHING’ OVER PLAN
A CONTROVERSIAL bid to demolish an historic property has been rejected by councillors.
The plan to demolish a house and outbuildings on Main Street, Calverton, and redevelop the site into three shops and eight apartments was recommended for approval by planning officers at Gedling Borough Council’s planning committee on July 27.
But it was thrown out by councillors.
The site has a single, roughly L-shaped vacant home to the east of the Grade Ii*-listed St Wilfrid’s Church and the west of Calverton Library. The area is overgrown with vegetation and trees.
Block A, a two-storey development of two shops at ground-floor level with two flats, was planned on the southern boundary of the site fronting Main Street.
Block B, a three-storey development of one shop at ground-floor level and six flats above, would have been next to the northern boundary, with the area between used for 13 car parking spaces.
But the planning committee refused the plans, saying that the three-storey element and design would “result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area and Listed Church that is not outweighed by the identified public benefit of the development”.
Residents previously said that they were “seething” about the plans, which would have expanded an existing shopping precinct.
At the committee meeting, 12 councillors voted against the plan with two voting in favour of it.
Mike Hope, the independent representative of the Calverton ward, said: “The recommendation from the conservation officer at the council was that it was at the high end of less-than-serious harm
“I honestly thought that the committee may not have been aware of just what Historic England and [Gedling Borough Council’s] conservation officer were saying.
“It’s been rejected, but I expect it will go to appeal, so we will have to wait and see what happens then.”
Historic England previously raised concerns that the demolition of the building would “result in the loss of an historic building that contributes to townscape and along with the degradation of the verdant nature of the site”.
Calverton Parish Council also opposed the demolition, stating the building should be retained because it was “key to the aesthetics of the village”.
“There is an awful lot of growth and trees, but from what I can gather it was a perfectly habitable house and could be again.
“And that is what people are saying – it’s this continual erosion of our character in Calverton,” Councillor Hope added.
“You don’t have a conservation area in order to turn it into a car park. People in general don’t like change, but then to have professionals say the same thing it’s for the planning committee to pay attention.”
But other bodies highlighted the potential social and economic benefits of the project. According to planning documents, the area’s empty homes officer labelled the anti-social behaviour around the property a “burden” for residents that had put a strain on the council’s neighbourhood wardens, who have had to carry out extra patrols.
The council’s economic development team welcomed the planned development, which it said would add to Calverton’s “growing settlement” and “well used and served” village centre.
The team added that the site was difficult to develop and applicant STAMP Developments Ltd had made efforts to make the two blocks attractive to occupants.
Guy Taylor Associates, on behalf of STAMP Developments, said: “In this case, and as set out previously, the proposal will bring public benefit which will demonstrably outweigh the ‘less than substantial harm’ as identified within the Heritage Impact Assessment.”
Public benefits would include: “The securing of a viable use for the site which has previously lain empty and although marketed a number of times not inhabited or developed.
“The potential to construct something which makes a positive aesthetic contribution in place of a derelict site which detracts from the character of the village. “The opportunity to align the use of the site with the policies that are covered by the ‘village centre’ designation. “Providing opportunity for the village centre shopping offer to increase to cope with the additional housing planned for the village.
“An opportunity to provide additional residential units at the centre of the village where services are provided rather than at the fringes of the settlement where a reliance on the car is increased.”
It’s been rejected but I expect it will go to appeal, so we will have to wait and see
Councillor Mike Hope