Planning Applications
A Personal View
WHEN THE PC considered a recent planning application I was reminded that we
have many now much-loved historic buildings which, in their time, attracted
considerable public opposition.
A small extension (bed and bathroom) is proposed behind 5, High Street, one part of the converted barn in the courtyard development that won a Civic Trust Award in 1965. The proposal has attracted comment from neighbours who legitimately fear some (easily correctible) loss of privacy. Most, or all, of the Parish Council, simply dislike the appearance of two small interlocking boxes, with new walls clad in blue/grey brick and timber boarding, climbing up the back slope. No-one actually quoted "carbuncle on the face of a much-loved mistress" but I would not have been surprised to hear it.
New buildings in a Conservation Area (CA) have to preserve, or now increasingly, enhance its character and appearance. That's because CA's usually contain buildings erected over a long period of time, in different styles, and today is just another period with different styles, (except for "period" style, which ain't got no style). Though situated within the CA, the existing courtyard buildings are not themselves listed as being of architectural or historical importance.
The new boxes would probably be seen through the footpath hedge above the site, and from adjacent private gardens. Just the very top of the extension could be glimpsed from one small part of the High Street, with nothing of it at all visible from the courtyard to nos.1,3,5 & 7 as the flat roofs of the new blocks would prevent them from looming over the existing house in front. So, why the universal opprobrium? Instinctively, we British don't like change and, with the lowest level of visual literacy in Europe, we are nervous about anything just a bit unfamiliar. It's common to see new buildings of (let's be kind here) indifferent design go up without any comment and, curiously, while some of the best designers are British, their work is much more appreciated overseas than here at home.
It's also curious that strong comment can be directed at discrete projects like this while the very prominent and unsightly substation on the corner of High Street and Cage Hill continues to be totally ignored. Yes. It's also in the CA.
At the PC meeting I admired the skilful treatment of the extension, broken down into smaller parts to achieve the right scale, and suggested that the mix of materials is not inappropriate. A variety of materials and colour throughout the village is what gives it its special character and appearance. We have many brick types, render and timber boarding too. There is no uniformity of e.g. Stamford here. The sniffed-at new flat roofs can be said to echo the applauded flat roofs on the courtyard garages and the integrated bus shelter.
The boxes have been accused of looking industrial too but, as the presence of several industrial buildings in the Conservation Area attests (one just across the High street from the site, with boarding) there is no legislation and no reason to exclude or isolate them from neighbouring dwellings; it's a normal feature in many villages. However, the technical and logistical problems here are considerable so, even if planning permission were to be got, I do wonder whether the project would ever see daylight.
I also made friends by suggesting that, in my opinion, the pretty, gentrified treatment of the gruff old buildings in the courtyard re-development make it rather a weak candidate for special recognition.
At the post-mortem, we looked at a postcard above the bar of the Crimson Cat showing an aerial view of St Mary's church with its roof, part-pitched and part-flat!
(Perhaps we accept them together only when they enjoy God's blessing).