The Ashdell Campaign | Letter of Objection

April 1998
LETTER OF OBJECTION

Proposed development of dwelling-house at Ashdell, in the Broomhill Conservation Area, Sheffield.

IMAGE RIGHT: Figure 1 - Broomhill Conservation Area (diagrammatic plan)
(©1998 Graham Soult)

Letter of Objection

Application: 98/0307P & 98/0308P LB

Within the curtilage of "Ashdell", Ashdell, Broomhill (Figure 1)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to object to the proposed development of a four bedroomed dwellinghouse with double garage and car parking in the gardens of Ashdell, and would like to raise a number of important issues concerning this application:

(1) The effect on the setting of a listed building (Ashdell);

(2) The effect on the character and appearance of Broomhill

Conservation Area;

(3) The loss of open space and amenity value;

(4) Other design and planning issues.

(1) The effect on the setting of a listed building (Ashdell)

The situation now:

Quite rightly, Ashdell has been designated as a listed building.

Its place in the development of Broomhill as a Victorian suburb is important; nineteenth century maps show Ashdell as one of the earliest buildings in the area.

The building itself is of historic interest, and despite its use as an annexe to Stephenson Hall of Residence, important features (such as a splendid bathroom) are still well preserved.

The grounds of Ashdell are an essential part of the building's setting, and it has been suggested that they are the work of Robert Marnock (responsible for the nearby Botanical Gardens). If this proves correct, the gardens may be worthy of inclusion on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, maintained by English Heritage.

Figure 2 shows a view of the entrance front to Ashdell, the building attractively framed by the setting of mature trees and lawn...

Ashdell front lawn

IMAGE RIGHT: Figure 2 - View of Ashdell from the site of the proposed dwelling.
(©1998 Graham Soult)

The situation after the proposed development:

... but if the development goes ahead, the view shown will no longer exist.

At a scale of 1:1250, the site plan shows that the proposed double garage is barely 10 metres from Ashdell's front porch. The expanse of lawn in the photograph will disappear completely; and the relationship between the house and its setting will be irrevocably spoilt.

PPG15 - "Planning and the Historic Environment" - draws attention to the importance of preserving this relationship:

"The setting is often an essential part of the [listed] building's character, especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function".

(Paragraph 2.16)

(2) The effect on the character and appearance of Broomhill Conservation Area

Since Broomhill was designated as a Conservation Area in 1977, its green spaces have been progressively eroded. It is important to protect those which remain. This site is highly visible, on the corner of two roads. The removal of any trees, and the construction of a new building, will undoubtedly impact upon the quality of the streetscape.

Policy BE16 in the Sheffield UDP - "Development in Conservation Areas" - supports this argument. It states that in Conservation Areas, planning permission will not normally be granted:

"for built development in existing gardens and local open spaces except where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area".

Further support for this view is contained in PPG15; clearly, the proposed development will neither "preserve" nor "enhance" Broomhill Conservation Area:

"Section 69 of the [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act imposes a duty on local planning authorities to designate as conservation areas any 'areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance'".

(Paragraph 4.1)

"The Courts have recently confirmed that planning decisions in respect of development proposed to be carried out in a conservation area must give a high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission".

(Paragraph 4.19)

If these policies in PPG15 are properly applied, the proposed development in Ashdell's garden cannot possibly be admissible.

(3) The loss of open space and amenity value

Developments by the University in Broomhill have successively reduced the amount of open space. As well as a visual degradation, this represents a reduction in the amenity space available to students. In the grounds of Stephenson Hall, open space has already been lost with the construction of South Wing in 1990, and Carrysbrook Court in 1996; elsewhere, open space has recently been developed at Tapton and Halifax Halls.

Enough is enough! University development in Broomhill has reached - or surpassed - saturation point. With 450 students now living at Stephenson Hall, the gardens of Ashdell are an important and popular resource during fine weather; if the proposed development takes place, this resource will be lost.

(4) Other design and planning issues

i) Felling of trees

The application states that "few only, if any" trees will be lost. This is very vague - the removal of even a "few" trees could dramatically alter the character and quality of the streetscape. More precise details of the proposed tree loss are essential.

ii) Sketch scheme

There is no scale on the sketch plans and elevations, making it difficult to visualise the building within the context of the site.

iii) Noise

The site is within the boundary of Stephenson Hall of Residence, and is close to local schools. In terms of the noise generated by students and schoolchildren, this is hardly the ideal site for what appears to be a family home.

iv) Reserved matters

Victor Moore writes that:

"A local planning authority... may consider that they are unable to determine an application for outline planning permission independently of any reserved matters. This view is frequently taken with regard to applications for the erection of buildings in conservation areas. In such cases, the local planning authority can require the applicant to submit further details with regard to all the reserved matters or any of them before proceeding to consider the development proposal".

(Moore, 1995: "A practical approach to Planning Law", p.146)

If outline planning permission is granted for this development, it is highly unlikely that the local authority would then refuse full planning permission at a later date. I would suggest that it is presently impossible to grant outline planning permission, since the detail submitted is clearly inadequate; nonetheless, the damaging impact of the proposed development is already absolutely clear, and I would urge members to reject the application.

Yours faithfully,

Graham Soult
Stuart Wrigley

[Back to The Ashdell Campaign homepage]