Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

 

The Chair advised he was predetermined in his support of the application and declared that his wife was Chair of Governors at the school which both his children attended. He would therefore hand over the chairing of this item to the vice chair, would speak to the application as a councillor and then recuse himself for this item.

 

Cllr Shah took the chair at this point.

 

The Development Management Services Manager introduced the report. The application was for listed building consent for the installation of replacement windows, doors and glazed screens to the external elevation and entrance lobby. Subsequent to the publication of the agenda pack, further representations had been received which did not raise any new issues. There are three grades of listed buildings and the school fell under the second grade (Grade 2 star listed property) on the Historic England website and had been awarded a RIBA medal. In terms of heritage assets, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identified two levels of harm that could be given to works to a building: substantial harm or less than substantial harm and consultations. Historic England and Essex Place Services, the Council’s heritage consultants, agreed that the level of harm in this case was less than substantial. The relevant test under the NPPF was that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In terms of harm, Historic England, Essex Place Services and officers agreed probably the biggest harm was the loss of the historical fabric (ie the removal of the original windows). Officers had been advised there was insufficient detail to demonstrate the acceptability of the replacement windows, doors and screens; this would normally take the form of detailed drawings that showed glazing details, sections through the windows so it was possible to see their width, and any other details that would feature on the windows. There was also insufficient evidence of other options that did not involve the loss of historic fabric, for example, replacing the glazing but not the frames, or introducing secondary glazing. The replacement windows as proposed would support the thermal efficiency of the building and assist with a more functional and comfortable environment within the school and there would also be the potential for reduced running costs. Having given regard to consultee comments from Historic England and Essex Place Services, it was recommended that due to the level of information provided, neither organisation would support the application as it stood; they would prefer to have more information before making a definitive conclusion, and so the officer recommendation was that the application be refused due to the reasons set out in the report.

 

Gavin Johnstone, applicant, addressed the committee:

“Good evening, I’m Gavin Johnston, the applicant, and I'm also a parent and a governor at Templewood School. I want to focus in this limited time in what was truly exceptional about this application. The first thing is how dramatic the public benefits are. Templewood is a one form entry school, paying energy costs of of an entire road of houses, enough to pay for a further teacher or several teaching assistants. The scale of the public benefit is shown by the support demonstrated from the community; we've had 100 supportive comments. More significantly, today we've had a huge turnout to show support. The next truly exceptional factor is the comments of Martin Cherry, the former head of listing at English Heritage and the man who listed Templewood School. When I contacted him, he was happy to go on the record, making comments about how re-fenestration with a slender profile would be acceptable and, when secondary glazing was mentioned, that anything clunky would destroy what makes our school special; also that secondary glazing, which is the only realistic alternatives to our proposal other than allowing the school to fall down would cause substantial double imaging, which would affect external views with particular reference to the murals in the school, which the officer just mentioned. He even commented that you'd bet the last point would be overlooked, which it appears it was.  Despite our invitation, no direct response to Mr Cherry's comments has been noted from Historic England, the Council's conservation officers or from officers themselves.

The true reasons for listing and for listing at Grade 2 star, rather than Grade 2, were explained by him to be the building's architecture, setting, light and airy feel, all of which can be preserved, with appropriate re-fenestration, but will be changed with secondary glazing, the only other option. Surely it has to be truly exceptional to have a situation where the man who listed the building and can articulate clearly why he listed it, contradicting today's consultants and officers, and we never really got an answer, Councillors, maybe you can get an answer this evening.

 

Similarly, the author of the one book referred to on the listing, Andrew Saint, supports, new windows and described the secondary glazing alternative as inappropriate. It's truly exceptional to have that level of support for this application. The other truly exceptional factor here is the successful re- fenestration of Barclay school in Stevenage, which was built at the same time in the same style, we’re discussing things on paper when just a short distance away it's possible to see that a re-fenestration in Crittal W20 produces a faultless heritage result. The window profile is so thin that a very detailed examination is required to even be able to see this as double glazing. There is no significant double imaging. I've conducted an inspection, we've had a surveyor conduct an inspection, also the chair of this committee Councillor Skoczylas - we've all seen very clearly this gives exceptional results. We asked Historic England, the Councils' consultants and officers to take a look. We understand that none of them have done so. Barclay school is, Grade 2 whereas Templewood is Grade 2 star but as I mentioned, the difference in grading is nothing to do with material preservation.

 

One final point: I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Historic England to ask how many times in the last five years they have taken legal action against local planning authorities for approving listed building applications. They came back and said the answer was none, they suggested conditions for approval which suggests they see approval as being within the range of reasonable decisions and they have a plan to answer the officers' criticisms, you just need the conditions to satisfy them this is a reasonable decision after balancing heritage and public benefits. Thank you.”

 

Katherine Martindill, Headteacher, Templewood School, addressed the committee:

“I’m Katherine, the headteacher of Templewood Primary School and our dedicated staff strive to create an optimal learning environment for our children. However, we face a significant challenge, our building. Imagine trying to concentrate when the classroom is freezing cold in winter, forcing you to wear a coat indoors, or sweltering hot in the summer, making it almost impossible to focus. Would you want to work in such conditions? This is the reality for our children, some as young as four years old.

 

By installing heritage double glazing as proposed in this application, we can significantly reduce temperature extremes in our classrooms, creating a more conducive environment for learning. We must ensure our children have the comfortable, supportive and safe space that they deserve. Councillors recently visited and saw that the windows are difficult to open and close and the emergency exit doors in each classroom also presents challenges. A 2012 condition survey identified the doors as a significant health and safety risk, recommending their replacement as soon as possible. No action has been taken. In 2019 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council declared a climate emergency prompting the Department of Education to require schools to develop an environment and sustainability action plan. Accordingly Templewood installed roof insulation, a new boiler and LED lights. However, our recent display energy certificate recommendation report states that Templewood can only improve our energy efficiency further by replacing our windows and doors. We teach our children about the importance of looking after the planet. However, our building currently contributes towards the problem. What example does this set for our children?

 

There is so much more the Templewood team wants to do to improve our school and make it the very best it can be. Unfortunately, the current single glazed windows hinder our school’s ability to allocate sufficient funds to achieve this. Last year, our energy costs were over £45,000. We are in the top 2.2% nationally of similar schools for these costs and we received no additional funds for this. Our school is being financially penalised for the building that we operate in. The cumulative impact has resulted in our school being in deficit. This is not sustainable and, as a result, the future of Templewood is currently uncertain. The officers' report claims that public benefits to outweigh the identified harm do not exist. I would like to know how our children's education is not a public benefit, how the children's wellbeing and safety is not a public benefit, and how reductions in energy use are not in the public benefit. By voting for this decision you can make a huge difference and improve the life chances of generations of Welwyn Garden City children. Thank you.”

 

Councillor Jean-Paul Skoczylas addressed the committee:

“Good evening. Templewood School is at the heart of our community serving our youngest and most precious. This application will maintain the operation and heritage of our proud school into the future.

 

Templewood was part of HCC's postwar school-building programme, the driving vision of which was groundbreaking for its time, with its focus on educational equality and high quality child-centred design. Unfortunately, the maintenance of this vision, which forms part of Templewood’s tangible communal and aesthetic heritage significance, has been continually undervalued by the Council and its consultees. The situation as it stands is detrimental to Templewood’s heritage significance. There were many details I'd like to challenge tonight. However, one thing I would like to express to members is the heritage similarity and quality of the proposed windows and doors. The current windows are based on Crittal medium universal range. In 1964 this standard was recodified to Crittal W20, the very standard proposed today, same material, similar slimline form. Indeed, some W 20s are already installed at Templewood having been approved by this Council and Historic England.

 

Additionally, Historic England have commented on the same submission documents that “we acknowledge the applicants have submitted the required high quality, the appearance and proposed sections of Crittal W 20 metal double glazed units will be similar to the existing 25 millimetre profile.

 

Historic England, the Council's heritage consultants and officers have all stated that the proposal causes less than substantial harm. This is key as it means paragraph 208 over the NPPF applies, that heritage harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. It is unfortunate but understandable that the public benefit is largely absent from the officer report. However, DMC offers more democratic scrutiny. It allows councillors who are embedded in our community to bring more contexts and understanding to decisions, and this has never been more appropriate given the pivotal role of the public benefits in this application. Templewood School is in the highest 2% of schools for energy use. This takes financial resource away from our children's education and harms the planet. It is in deficit. We need to secure Templewood for the future -  warmer children in winter, cooler children in summer, removal of lead, removal of asbestos, fully functional windows and doors that can be used by children, reducing health and safety risks. In heritage terms, it will help return the school back to the vision of its creators, providing a high quality education environment for all. What deserves more public benefit weight than a primary school?

 

Our school and community were let down in 1993, let down in 2014. Members, do not let down our school and community again. For pupils' current and future, and our whole community, vote to reject officers’ recommendations. If required, apply the recommended conditions by the Council's heritage consultants in their latest response but above all else, approve the application.”

 

Councillor Skoczylas then left the room for the remainder of this item.

 

Councillor Leo Gilbert addressed the committee: 

“I'm speaking in my position as ward councillor, but also as an ex parent of two girls who spent something like 15 or 16 happy but cold years at Templewood.

 

So I know for many years Templewood has been struggling with the difficulties caused by ill-fitting windows and doors: drafty classrooms, pupils becoming cold in the winter, incredible strain placed on the school's heating system and many thousands of pounds that should have been spent on improving pupils' life chances are being wasted on a losing battle to keep the learning environment at an acceptable temperature.

 

Over this time, the school's leadership has worked hard to put forward their case for windows that are fit for purpose, spent countless hours, huge amounts of money on working up the proposals, amassing evidence and calculating data, and the financial and learning costs suffered by the school and its pupils. The school does understand the position of Historic England, and this understanding is represented in the careful consideration they have given to ensuring that the replacement windows they are asking for are in keeping with the appearance and the original design of the school. Indeed, from what I have seen, the windows would be largely indistinguishable from the windows that were originally installed all those years ago.

 

Surely there are more important concerns than that the windows should be an exact replica of the original windows that were put in place all those years ago, for what is when all is said and done a place of learning.

 

The physical aspect of the school must, as a priority, support not undermine that learning as a first principle. The original windows were installed in a different era when nobody was aware of global warming and the climate crisis we are living through. It cannot be right that a place that is teaching young people how to make this planet a sustainable place to inhabit should itself through no fault of its own, be having a significant detrimental impact on the environment through burning such high volumes of fossil fuels. Double glazing provides the greatest reduction in CO2 in an energy consumption, then the secondary glazing there has been proposed as an alternative. Double glazing provides the lowest long-term and whole life cost and heritage double glazing will last at least 60 years. In the end, the Council must consider whether any detriment to the building caused by replacing the windows would be outweighed by the benefit brought to the thousands of pupils who will pass through the school gates over the years and decades to come. The clear answer must be that replacing the windows will bring a far greater benefit to Templewood’s children and their life chances. I know that some buildings that have been in a similar position have given up the fight and shut up shop. This cannot be allowed to happen to Templewood. It must remain at the heart of its community, providing an excellent standard of education for its pupils for many decades to come. “

 

The report noted the application was not submitted by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) but by a local resident with Ownership Certificate B signed on the application form to identify HCC as the landowner. A member asked whether this was valid. Officers said anyone could make a planning application on any building or land providing they served the requisite notice on the building owner. HCC was the owner and the applicant, a governor at the school, had served the correct notice.  

 

A member commented that the report said insufficient information had been provided in respect of the replacement windows. Officers said this was at the heart of why they were recommending refusal; for a building of this significance Historic England in particular would require a level of information that was not present in the application. There was some uncertainty about the effect of proposed works on the structure of the school which could not be known without further investigatory work taking place.

 

A member was minded to vote against officers’ recommendation as three years of schooling had been heavily impacted by Covid and associated restrictions, the temperature in the school was unsatisfactory, and the heritage of the building should not take priority over pupils and their health. If the building continued to deteriorate, children would no longer attend the school meaning it would no longer function as a school; the building needed children in attendance to remain functioning as a Grade 2* listed property.  

 

Another member shared these sentiments and felt the application should be supported while noting a solution would need to be found within the confines of planning law, and asked officers if a compromise may be that members could approve the application but with conditions that would satisfy Historic England. Officers advised that procedure rules meant the committee had to first vote on the recommendation and if that was not supported, there were other options that could include recommending approval with conditions. Some draft conditions had been circulated and the detail of those could potentially be agreed in consultation with the Vice Chair after the meeting.

 

Other members also spoke in favour of replacing the windows. One member had visited the school and described some windows that did not open, very heavy doors and children having to wear coats indoors in winter. Members reflected that older windows could exacerbate respiratory problems due to damp and mould; that the windows needed to be replaced but could remain in keeping with the original design; and that it made sense for the windows to be replaced for the welfare of pupils, working environment for staff and the planet.

 

A member felt that public benefit should include benefits afforded to schoolchildren and the right to education and therefore this should tilt the balance towards approving the application. Officers advised that based on the limited information submitted, the benefits did not outweigh the harm; had the application contained more information it was feasible Historic England could have concluded there would be less harm to this heritage asset. The member queried why particular drawings had not been included in the application – officers did not know the answer and said Historic England had wanted the drawings to be provided so proposed replacement windows could be assessed both on a window by window basis and also in terms of the whole building.  Asked further about the public benefit, officers said this could be summarised as a general improvement to the learning environment that would enable children to get the best education they could as well as reduced running costs for the school.           

 

A member wanted to approve the application so the school was fit for purpose but felt he could not support it on a legal basis given the lack of information in the application. He hoped it would be possible to find acceptable conditions. Due to the lack of information the Council had received, there were some unknown factors with the windows and the wider building. While it was clear heritage did not take priority over children, and if it was not clear what additional conditions might be the situation could deteriorate. The member urged the committee to consider refusing the application and then looking at imposing conditions. Officers advised they had received comments from Historic England about the wording of conditions should listed building consent be granted and, subject to any further refinement of the conditions and the committee delegating authority to the Assistant Director (Planning) in consultation with the Vice Chair to agree the final wording, they were satisfied the Council could still require the submission of sufficient detail before the works started in order to satisfy those requirements.   

 

A vote took place on whether listed building consent should be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Agree: 1

Abstention: 0

Disagree: 10.

 

The Chair advised that as the vote was against officers’ recommendation, officers should be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision; there need to be clear and convincing reasons for refusal, taking into account material planning considerations. The Assistant Director (Planning) noted officers had explained the balancing exercise the committee needed to undertake having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and also section 16.2 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act which required proposals to preserve the special interest of listed buildings. He had noted that benefits identified by members included the energy saving benefits of the proposal, improvements to the learning environment and to the safety of the building as well as the long-term sustainability of the school. If members agreed with that then they should consider moving a recommendation that listed building consent be granted and he asked that authority be delegated to him as the Assistant Director (Planning) in consultation with the Vice Chair to include suitably worded conditions with that consent. This would include the provision of method statement for the works and the required level of detail for the replacement windows as well as other conditions recommended by Historic England.         

 

Councillor Broach proposed and Councillor Musk seconded that planning permission be granted subject to the caveats described above. A vote took place as follows:

Agree: 11

Abstention: 0

Disagree: 0.

 

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to suitably worded conditions delegated to the Assistant Director (Planning) in consultation with the Vice Chair.

 

Post-meeting note. The conditions are set out below:

 

1.   Window replacements

 Prior to the commencement of any works, full details of the proposed new windows, including sections and elevations at an appropriate scale, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Subsequently, the development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved details and retained in that form thereafter.

 

REASON: To ensure the historic and architectural character and setting of the Grade II* listed building is properly maintained, in accordance with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.   Door replacements

 Prior to the commencement of any works, full details of the replacement doors, including sections and elevations at an appropriate scale and a written justification, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall consider the adaptation or repair of the existing doors along with sufficient justification about the proposed replacements. Subsequently, the development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved details and retained in that form thereafter.

 

REASON: To ensure the historic and architectural character and setting of the Grade II* listed building is properly maintained, in accordance with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3.   Written Scheme of Investigation

 No demolition, conversion or alterations to the fabric of the building hereby approved shall take place/commence until a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include an assessment of historical significance and research questions; and:

 

1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

2. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as required by the evaluation;

3. The programme for post investigation assessment;

4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;

5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the WSI.

 

No demolition, conversion or alterations to the fabric of the building shall take place until the satisfactory completion of the recording, in accordance with the approved WSI.

 

REASON: To ensure the historic and architectural character and setting of the Grade II* listed building is properly recorded, in accordance with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.   Appropriate depository

 Following the completion of the works in the approved WSI, a report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the results of the WSI, along with written confirmation from an appropriate depository (as identified and agreed in the WSI) that the WSI has been appropriately deposited. No demolition, conversion or alterations to the fabric of the building shall take place until the results of the WSI and written confirmation from an appropriate depository have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: To ensure the historic and architectural character and setting of the Grade II* listed building is properly recorded, in accordance with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.  NS Structural concrete/ steel frames

 Prior to the removal of any windows or doors, a method statement by an appropriately qualified specialist shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall ensure the replacement of windows and doors will not result in unnecessary damage to the concrete panels or steel frame system of the building. The approved method statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the works.

 

REASON: To ensure the historic and architectural character and setting of the Grade II* listed building is properly maintained, in accordance with the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

1. POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

 POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

 

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).