Decision details

Public Question

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Professor Bullock raised the following points:

      i.          Asked for Barrow Road to be designated as a Conservation Area.

    ii.          English Heritage viewed Barrow Road properties as worthy of conservation.

 iii.          The architectural qualities/values of houses in Barrow Road were coming under threat as people changed house appearances, demolished or replaced them.

  iv.          Much of the city was already protected by Conservation Areas.

    v.          A Conservation Area was the only way to defend the qualities of the neighbourhood.

  vi.          Barrow Road residents wanted to contribute to the costs of becoming a Conservation Area by providing:

a.    Money

b.    Expertise.

c.    Research material.

vii.          Residents had subscribed a sum of money for a consultant to undertake a Conservation Area assessment.

 

2.    Mrs Bullock raised the following points:

      i.          Asked for Barrow Road to be designated as a Conservation Area. 85% of residents expressed this view.

    ii.          Copies of resident’s application had been provided to Officers.

 iii.          Took issue with the amount of time taken by Officers to consider the application.

  iv.          Stated urgent action was required to preserve Barrow Road as an architectural asset for the city.

    v.          Circulated speaker notes which included copies of correspondence to date.

 

The Urban Design and Conservation Manager responded:

       i.          Commended Professor and Mrs Bullock’s care and wanting to protect their neighbourhood.

     ii.          Agreed with the sentiment of what they were saying.

   iii.          Was familiar with the funding and English Heritage consultation methods mentioned in the representations.

   iv.          The Pro-Active Conservation Work Programme consultation was at a key stage for review by Environment Scrutiny Committee and Council. In order to include Barrow Road, Councillors would have to make a decision to change their current commitments, plus accept associated costs to reprioritise the programme. This was possible, but would incur costs.

 

3.    The Committee Manager read out a statement on behalf of Mrs Hargreaves: “Could Bentley Road be made a conservation area as it is a line of arts and craft houses. If they are not kept it will become a hotch pot”.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report reviewed the work that had been completed as part of the Council’s pro-active conservation work programme since the last report to committee in March 2014. The purpose of the report was to update members on the work that had been completed, what was outstanding, and what was proposed.  The report also noted the spend to date on the programme as well as sought a steer from the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy on a request to designate Barrow Road a conservation area.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

       i.          Agreed the pro-active conservation programme as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Agreed that existing commitments in the Council's Pro-Active Work Programme as set out in the Officer’s report should have priority at this time.

   iii.          Noted the request for the designation of Barrow Road as a conservation area, and to agree that such designation is not prioritised for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Urban Design and Conservation Manager. He stated the report contained a typographical error listing the last report to committee in March 2013, it should read 2014.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Wanted to protect Barrow Road.

     ii.          The Council needed to balance cost savings with protecting its heritage as the Council received very limited funding from Central Government.

   iii.          Pro-active work priorities for the Conservation Team at this time are to complete the update of the Historic Core Area Appraisal and to review the most vulnerable Buildings of Local Interest outside of conservation areas for potential Article 4 Directions.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Design and Conservation Manager and Principal Conservation and Design Officer said the following:

       i.          If the Pro-Active Conservation Work Programme was prioritised, the review of the most vulnerable Buildings of Local Interest outside of conservation areas for potential Article 4 Directions would be put on hold.

     ii.          An initial review of Pro-Active Conservation Work was undertaken, the former Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change gave permission to proceed. Officers were following this process. Reconsideration of the matter as to whether or not to designate could be undertaken in 12 months once other work has progressed if the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport agreed.

   iii.          Resources, rather than staffing numbers were the principal issue that affected timescales for work. Preparing a conservation area appraisal document/process correctly was a 4-6 month process.

 

The Director of Environment added that he would not advocate Neighbourhood Plans as a solution for Barrow Road protection. He reiterated a review of the situation of whether to proceed with designation could be undertaken in 1 year. If the Pro-Active Conservation Work Programme was re-prioritised now, the previous commitment would have to be taken out.

 

   iv.          The Council could accept private funding and expertise from residents to undertake conservation work. The Urban Design and Conservation Manager re-iterated that reprioritising the conservation programme would impact on pre-existing commitments made in the past year with respect to pro-active conservation work.

    v.          A Home Alteration Design Guide was a topic of interest to householders. A lot of insulation work etc was covered under permitted development even in Conservation Areas, unless Article 4 Directions already applied. Officers advised that English Heritage already provided such information but would review if details could be put on Conservation Team webpages in future.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (i).

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (ii).

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (iii) by 5 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. He said that conservation and preservation work were separate issues. The Conservation Team were facing challenging priorities, which should remain unchanged.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.