The Latest Masterplan

ANNEX 1

Dear Chris,

ACKLAM HALL

Following the meeting at Acklam last Friday, I thought it might be useful to summarise English Heritage’s current position in respect of the emerging development proposals. The following is intended to consolidate the points I raised during the meeting, rather than to supercede or replace them. Please feel free to copy this letter to the developer; it is being provided in the spirit of trying to move the discussions forward.

The latest masterplan

1.The amended masterplan that was circulated ahead of Friday’s meeting (dwg no: 84554/00802 rev B) contains one positive element when compared to the previous version we saw (dwg no: sk0005 dated April 2010). We very much support and welcome the omission from the scheme of the proposed extension to the west side of the Hall. This would help to give the listed building a little more “breathing space” and, alongside the reinstatement of the formal gardens which occupied this part of the site (as evidenced by documentary sources and as part of a carefully considered landscape strategy for the entire site) would go some way towards enhancing the building’s setting.

2.It is important to record, however, that our support for the omission of the west extension in no way signals our acceptance of taller new development on the east side of the Hall. As we have previously stated, any new development immediately adjacent or attached to the Hall should be low in height (i.e. no taller than the front range of the existing 1930s extension to the east side of the listed building), of very high design quality, and of a form that responds imaginatively to the history and character of the site without overpowering the principal listed building. This will require, as the published development brief points out, “the very highest and most sensitive design skills” (paragraph 5.1).

3.Similarly, as part of a bespoke and conservation-led design solution for the site, it will be important that any new development uses high quality and enduring construction materials that strengthen local character and distinctiveness. The developer’s proposal, tabled towards the end of Friday’s meeting, to use artificial roofing slates and “artstone” walling in the proposed building on the north side of the Hall is clearly a concern, coming as it does after extended discussions that have stressed the need for all new development to be of the very highest quality, consistent with the requirements of the development brief and the guidelines in the published conservation plan and conservation area management plan.

4. Apart from the omission of the proposed extension to the west side of the Hall, the latest masterplan represents a significant backward step from the earlier scheme. In the written comments we provided to the Council back in 2008 on the short-listed developer submissions, we said that new development within the site would only be acceptable if it reflected an understanding of the formal landscape layout. This has been a recurring theme of the written advice we have provided to the Council over the past two years. The latest masterplan provides few indications that the authors truly understand the landscape significance of the site, or that there is an appetite to work within the constraints set out in the development brief and related documents. The placement of a 50 space car park in front of the Hall, within the central viewing corridor of the building from the south, is one example of this. As we discussed on Friday, there are many other areas where the current proposals are deficient. If the current scheme were to be submitted as a planning application, English Heritage would recommend refusal due to the harmful effect the proposals would have upon the setting of the grade I listed building and upon the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5.As I said on Friday, this scheme will only move forward if amended proposals are produced which respond meaningfully to a historic landscape assessment prepared by a suitably experienced professional. We could provide the names of consultants who have successfully completed comparable work elsewhere. A strong and responsive landscape strategy which reinforces the formal landscape layout and which – in particular – enhances the “soft and pleasing aspect” of the south and west fronts of the Hall (to quote the conservation plan, page 30) is an essential ingredient of an acceptable scheme.

Evidence of financial viability

6.We are conscious that the removal of the proposed development block to the west side of the Hall, combined with the need to substantially increase the quality of the latest masterplan proposals, could have implications for the financial viability of the scheme. These implications should be quantified and understood at the earliest possible stage. The central planning objective of a proposal of the kind currently being considered is, of course, to secure the future of the principal listed building – and its immediate landscape setting – in the long term. Given the current economic climate, we consider it to be vital that the local planning authority approaches the current negotiations with the developer on an open book basis.

7.There are several important considerations here which I know will be very familiar to you. For example, if development blocks are being removed from the scheme at this late stage, it is important that the developer is able to demonstrate, through a reworked development appraisal, the financial implications of such a change, providing absolute clarity and comfort to the local planning authority of his ability to deliver a scheme of the highest quality that would secure the care and well-being of the site in the long term. Any attempt to dilute “quality” as a means of offsetting lost “value” or increased costs is unlikely to lead to an acceptable scheme on this highly significant site, and it is in the interests of all parties that any such financial issues are identified and resolved now rather than for matters to come to a head later in the planning process. The local planning authority also needs to satisfy itself that the mechanisms for funding the long-term maintenance of the site are adequate and robust.

8.Similarly, on the basis of the proposed omission of the development block to the west side of the Hall, we consider it to be vital that the local planning authority satisfies itself as soon as possible – through independent expert verification – that the current scheme represents a proportionate response to the investment needs of the site. This will inevitably involve securing certainty that the developer is not being asked to pay too much for the site having regard to its condition and the defined development constraints. Clarity should also be provided that other elements of the development appraisal – for example, profit and contingency allowances – are fair and reasonable. These are, of course, complex and specialist considerations, perhaps necessitating the employment by the local planning authority of suitably qualified and experienced “external” professionals if such expertise is not available in-house. However, given the importance of the site and the constraints that are clearly identified in the development brief, we consider it to be essential that appropriate early scrutiny is applied to the developer’s evidence of cost and value.

Repair and future use of the Hall

9.It is untenable that a scheme which purports to secure the long-term future of the Hall and its immediate landscape setting should remain silent about the future use of the principal listed building. In our view, any forthcoming planning application should provide certainty about the end use of the listed building.

10.As agreed at Friday’s meeting, it will be important to ensure that legally enforceable mechanisms are put in place on the back of any forthcoming planning consent to secure not only the initial repair of the full site within a prescribed timescale, but also its long-term maintenance and management. We endorse the requirement of the development brief that a suitably experienced conservation architect takes a leading role in the development team. Such specialist expertise will be particularly important in bringing forward proposals for the repair and re-use of the Hall.

Application information

11.We had a long discussion during the second half of Friday’s meeting about the level of information that would need to be submitted as part of an outline planning application. The meeting minutes will record the pertinent points, therefore it is not my intention to repeat the full discussion here. However, it is perhaps important to re-state our earlier advice that, in practice, an outline application will need to be supported by sufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not harm the significance of the site, and to define a clear approach to the reserved matters.

12.We believe that the information necessary to secure this is a workable masterplan, a comprehensive landscape strategy and phasing plan for the entire site, together with a thorough “design code” document. The latter will need to define the general design approach across the entire site, identifying broad design parameters in respect of building heights, construction materials, external appearance and architectural form/character. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the design code will need to define the specific design approach for those residential blocks that would form the outer edge of the two areas of proposed housing, and for the proposed new extension to the east side of the Hall, identifying detailed design parameters in respect of layout, building height, scale and massing, construction materials, external appearance and architectural form/character. The detailed elements of the design code could then form the basis of a condition which would accompany any outline consent, rather than for these aspects to be dealt with as reserved matters.

13.It will, of course, be important to seek early confirmation from Tees Archaeology on the level of information they would want to see in any outline application in respect of archaeological matters.

14.Ultimately, our acceptance of an outline planning application will depend on the final proposals demonstrably not harming the significance of the site.

I hope the above is helpful in clarifying our position. We look forward to continuing our pre-application involvement in this highly significant site, working alongside Middlesbrough Council as the local planning authority.

Yours sincerely,

David Farrington

Historic Buildings Inspector

e-mail: