Graeme Armet recently obtained planning permission to modify the Abbey Church Dunbar and convert it into a 5 bed-roomed home late in 2012, but it was a painful and tortuous process. Yet receiving the planning permission turned out to be a pyrrhic victory as there was another more substantial hurdle to surmount, the refusal of Listed Building consent. Armett duly submitted an appeal to Scottish Ministers in January 2013.
The decision making process for planning appeals is quite mechanical and seems to leave rather more room for subjective judgement than at first meets the eye. I leave it to others to judge whether the appointed reporter was being selective or entirely impartial in the arguments martialled in dismissing the appeal. Dan Jackman the appointed reporter refused the appeal on the 5th April 2013.
The approach seems at times sympathetic:
I appreciate the urgency of finding a viable use and function for the building. I accept that an appropriate renovation scheme is likely to have wider economic and community benefits. I acknowledge that any delay is likely to compound the difficulties in finding a viable future for the building, particularly in today’s economic circumstances.
This is at best an attempt at providing a degree of balance, and makes the argument for dismissing the appeal more persuasive.
Jackman opens his statement stating that the determining issues are whether the proposal would preserve the building and features of special architectural or historic interest and the character and appearance of the conservation area. There is no recapitulation of the special architectural or historic interest, which is arguably the weakest link.
Interestingly, Jackman picks out four factors that should be considered.
i) The relative importance of the building;
ii) the scale of the impact;
iii) whether there are other options; and
iv) whether significant benefits for growth or to the wider community would occur to justify an adverse impact.
(para 3.49 Scottish Historic Environment Policy)
Jackman continues to say that where significant change is considered necessary on economic grounds, applicants are expected to provide supporting information to demonstrate this (3.52). This looks to me like it is a key determining factor, since the relative importance of the building is at no point questioned or assessed. It also seems that evaluating other options would place undue burdens, though I do not know whether there are any precedents and whether others have challenged this; and finally the last test seems entirely subjective in the context a private development and I am not sure how it could be evaluated.
It is no surprise that Jackman then goes on to say that he considers the alterations would be significant and adverse and that if the sole criterion were the preservation of the architectural and historic character of the grade B listed church this alone would be a project killer. So Jackman is suggesting that the project killer test is not the main test.
Moreover the reporter substantially accepts Armet’s arguments that the building is already derelict and needs an imaginative and financially viable solution or else the building cannot be managed and will ultimately be lost. The reporter boldly accepts that the proposal is one possible solution to ‘a challenging problem’. He also accepts that a well designed contemporary building can be juxtaposed with an older building and that the north elevation, the principal and most visible elevation, would substantially retain the architectural and historic character of the conservation area. The juxtaposition of the old and the new is not the problem and it is clear that the character of the area would be pretty much retained.
But had Armet provided information that demonstrated that ‘repairs’ (whatever that means) were either technically impossible or economically unviable, it sounds as if the appeal would have had (slightly?) more chance of success. Jackman states: ‘I have insufficient information to safely conclude that the proposal is the only reasonable practical option. There is therefore a risk that important elements of the building are lost unnecessarily.’ Yet not one of these important elements is identified. I am sure there are some, but this statement seems questionable to say the least.
Alas Armet’s case unravels further because the advice of Historic Scotland and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland weighs considerably more than his own or that of the (only?) published academic evidence of the architectural importance of the church by reknowned historian Joe Rock. It is unclear whether any of the parties against the proposal took the time to consider the implications of an objection except in terms of the killer test: ie the sole criterion is the preservation of the architectural and historic character of the grade B listed church.
What should Armet have done? Devise a cogent conservation strategy? Possibly. Demonstrate that his proposal was the only reasonable and practical option? This seems philosophically dubious as any number of options would be viable, so not entirely reasonable. Also, an even higher test seems to have been invoked that the ‘proposal is structurally feasible and that the continued repair and maintenance of the remaining building is sustainable’. This seems to me to be simply one or more conditions that could have been imposed on granting consent [1. Jackman argues that the building regulation process is inadequate because ‘there would be no straightforward mechanism for assessing the impacts of any additional works’. ]
Jackman notes the omission of any such information in the appeal.
Some concluding facts in no particular order:
Planning permission has been granted for the proposal.
The building continues to be neglected, and in the words of the reporter “ultimately it will be lost.”
The council has powers to ensure repairs are undertaken in certain circumstances.
There is urgency of finding a viable use and function for the building.
An appropriate renovation scheme is likely to have wider economic and community benefits.
Any delay is likely to compound the difficulties in finding a viable future the building, particularly in today’s economic circumstances.
Armet’s proposals would not preserve all of the important characteristics of the church, though we are left to infer which features are important relatively speaking.
The character of the Conservation Area would probably be preserved.
Listed building consent has not been granted.