{"id":923,"date":"2013-04-11T21:55:17","date_gmt":"2013-04-11T20:55:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/abbeylandsresidents.org.uk\/?p=923"},"modified":"2023-08-24T16:04:54","modified_gmt":"2023-08-24T15:04:54","slug":"abbey-church-listed-building-consent-appeal-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/abbey-church-listed-building-consent-appeal-rejected\/","title":{"rendered":"Abbey Church Dunbar: Listed building consent appeal rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Abbey-Church-Front-Elevation-After\"<\/a>Graeme Armet recently obtained planning permission to modify the Abbey Church Dunbar<\/a> and convert it into a 5 bed-roomed home late in 2012, but it was a painful and tortuous process<\/a>.\u00a0 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<\/a>.\u00a0 Armett duly submitted an appeal to Scottish Ministers in January 2013.<\/p>\n

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<\/sup> April 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The approach seems at times sympathetic:<\/p>\n

I appreciate the urgency of finding a viable use and function for the building.\u00a0 I accept that an appropriate renovation scheme is likely to have wider economic and community benefits.\u00a0 I acknowledge that any delay is likely to compound the difficulties in finding a viable future for the building, particularly in today\u2019s economic circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is at best an attempt at providing a degree of balance, and makes the argument for dismissing the appeal more persuasive.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, Jackman picks out four factors that should be considered.<\/p>\n

i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The relative importance of the building;<\/p>\n

ii)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the scale of the impact;<\/p>\n

iii)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 whether there are\u00a0 other options; and<\/p>\n

iv)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 whether significant benefits for growth or to the wider community\u00a0 would occur to justify an adverse impact.<\/p>\n

(para 3.49 Scottish Historic Environment Policy)<\/p>\n

Jackman continues to say that where significant change is considered necessary on economic grounds<\/i>, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Moreover the reporter substantially accepts Armet\u2019s 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 \u2018a challenging problem\u2019.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

But had Armet provided information that demonstrated that \u2018repairs\u2019 (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: \u2018I have\u00a0 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\u00a0 unnecessarily.\u2019 Yet not one of these important elements is identified. I am sure there are some, but this statement seems questionable to say the least.<\/p>\n

Alas Armet\u2019s 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<\/a>. 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\u00a0 architectural and historic character of the grade B listed church.<\/p>\n

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 \u2018proposal is structurally feasible and that the continued repair and maintenance of the remaining building is sustainable\u2019.\u00a0 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 \u2018there would be no straightforward mechanism for assessing the impacts of any additional works\u2019.\u00a0]<\/p>\n

Jackman notes the omission of any such information in the appeal.<\/p>\n

Some concluding facts in no particular order:<\/p>\n

Planning permission has been granted for the proposal.<\/p>\n

The building continues to be neglected, and in the words of the reporter \u201cultimately it will be lost.\u201d<\/p>\n

The council has powers to ensure repairs are undertaken in certain circumstances.<\/p>\n

There is urgency of finding a viable use and function for the building.<\/p>\n

An appropriate renovation scheme is likely to have wider economic and community benefits.<\/p>\n

Any delay is likely to compound the difficulties in finding a viable future the building, particularly in today\u2019s economic circumstances.<\/p>\n

Armet\u2019s proposals would not preserve all of the important characteristics of the church, though we are left to infer which features are important relatively speaking.<\/p>\n

The character of the Conservation Area would probably be preserved.<\/p>\n

Listed building consent has not been granted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 Yet receiving the planning permission turned out to be a pyrrhic victory as there was another more substantial hurdle to surmount, the refusal of … Continue reading Abbey Church Dunbar: Listed building consent appeal rejected<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":155,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abbey-church"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":325,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/bedlam-theatre-and-abbey-church\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":0},"title":"Bedlam Theatre and Abbey Church Dunbar","author":"templar","date":"June 3, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"What does the Bedlam Theatre in Edinburgh have in common with the Abbey Church in Dunbar? Not much you'd think. Bedlam\u00a0is home to a thriving theatre company and is the oldest fully student-run theatre in Britain. It has a\u00a090 seat theatre and the Fat Cat Caf\u00e9 are open for performances\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Abbey Church"","block_context":{"text":"Abbey Church","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/abbey-church\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2012\/06\/Abbey-Church-Front-Rear-Elevations-Before.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2637,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/the-decline-and-fall\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":1},"title":"The decline and fall","author":"@ourlocality","date":"August 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A potted history of the Abbey Church courtesy of Buildings at Risk December 1994: The church is no longer in ecclesiastical use, although roof repairs have been carried out recently as the building continues to be used for temporary non-ecclesiastical uses. September 1995: The church appears for sale. January 1999:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Abbey Church"","block_context":{"text":"Abbey Church","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/abbey-church\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0000_Layer-4.png?fit=1010%2C725&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0000_Layer-4.png?fit=1010%2C725&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0000_Layer-4.png?fit=1010%2C725&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0000_Layer-4.png?fit=1010%2C725&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":648,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/local-review-body-visit-the-abbey-church\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":2},"title":"Local Review Body visit the Abbey Church","author":"templar","date":"August 29, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Consultees and Interested Parties have been invited to a site visit, which will take place this afternoon, Wednesday 29 August at 2.30pm. \u00a0Previously on Abbeylands I wrote about the vagaries of the\u00a0Planning Application No 11\/00704\/P (Derelict Church Converted to a 5 Bedroom House and Walled Garden at Abbey Church, Dunbar).\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Abbey Church"","block_context":{"text":"Abbey Church","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/abbey-church\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":473,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/dunbars-lost-history-in-the-making-abbey-church\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":3},"title":"Dunbar’s lost history in the making: Abbey Church","author":"templar","date":"June 22, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Previously on Abbeylands I wrote about the plans for the Abbey Church to be converted into a 5 bedroom, 3 story home. Listed Building Consent was refused earlier this year. At exactly the time I was writing, the architect Grahame Armet submitted an appeal (3 June 2012). The substance of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Abbey Church"","block_context":{"text":"Abbey Church","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/abbey-church\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2012\/06\/Abbey-Church-Front-Elevation-Before.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1811,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/my-beautiful-backyard\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":4},"title":"A beautiful yard?","author":"templar","date":"April 18, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Those of you that have been paying attention will know about the progressive decline of the Abbey Church in Dunbar and the extended planning shenanigans, which ended up in a failed appeal to establish an audacious 5 bed modern home inside the shell of the B listed church. Graham Armet,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Abbey Church"","block_context":{"text":"Abbey Church","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/abbey-church\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0004_Layer-12.png?fit=801%2C598&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0004_Layer-12.png?fit=801%2C598&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0004_Layer-12.png?fit=801%2C598&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2014\/04\/abbey_0004_Layer-12.png?fit=801%2C598&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1547,"url":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/bedlam-in-dunbar\/","url_meta":{"origin":923,"position":5},"title":"Bedlam in Dunbar?","author":"templar","date":"November 24, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Those in the know, will have heard of the special relationship that exists between Dunbar's Abbey Church and its big sister the\u00a0Bedlam Church\u00a0in nearby Edinburgh,\u00a0both built in the mid 1800s by the architect Thomas Hamilton for the Free Church. \u00a0More elegant and refined, and altogether much better loved, Bedlam is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "News"","block_context":{"text":"News","link":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/topics\/news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"IMG-20130912-00040","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/files\/2013\/11\/IMG-20130912-00040-300x198.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/155"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=923"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/923\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2630,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/923\/revisions\/2630"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ourlocality.org\/abbeylands\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}