The Ashdell Campaign | "Ashdell development would be a tragedy for the city"

August 1998
"ASHDELL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY FOR THE CITY"

Supplementary Information sent to Sheffield City Council by Graham Soult.

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

Within the curtilage of "Ashdell", Ashdell, Broomhill

From: Graham Soult

http://www.soult.com/ashdell/

Dear Sir/Madam,

In April 1998, I wrote a letter of objection to you regarding the proposed development of a four bedroomed dwellinghouse with double garage and car parking in the gardens of Ashdell, in Broomhill.

I would like to supplement that letter with a number of important comments and observations arising from my research over the last few months.

These relate to:

(1) The current situation regarding the application;

(2) The need (or not) for listed building consent;

(3) Future obstacles;

(4) Recognition of the garden's importance;

(5) Conclusion

(1) The current situation regarding the application

From my discussions with Sheffield City Council's Planning and Economic Development Department at the beginning of August, I understand that:

(i) No decision had been taken at that time, either regarding the development per se, or its effect upon the Broomhill Conservation Area or the setting of nearby listed buildings;

(ii) A decision by the committee was not likely until the middle of August, at the earliest;

(iii) It had been decided that formal listed building consent would not be required, since the listed building itself was not being "altered", "demolished" or "extended". Instead, the effect upon the setting of the listed building would be considered in the course of the main planning application;

(iv) The Highways Department had no objection to the proposed scheme, as long as a better plan and wider access could be provided;

(v) There had been numerous local objections, including some from the local councillors.

A number of important points are thus raised.

(2) The need (or not) for listed building consent

On the face of it, Sheffield City Council is justified in its opinion that listed building consent is not required for the proposed development.

This need not, however, mean that the development is any more or less likely to be permitted. Even in the course of a basic planning application, s.66(1) and s.16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 state that the local planning authority is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which the building possesses.

If PPG15 is correctly interpreted, it seems slightly bizarre that a proposal to paint the front door of Ashdell red instead of green probably would require listed building consent (paragraph 3.2); but building a four bedroom house in the middle of the front garden does not. Nonetheless, the listed house is not being demolished, altered or extended - the new dwellinghouse will form an entirely separate building, and hence, the effect is merely upon the setting of the existing house.

However, it is important to clarify what actually constitutes the "listed building".

According to section 1(5) of the 1990 Act, a listed building includes:

"any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1 July 1948".

PPG15 then goes on to state (paragraph 3.34) that:

"The Courts have held that for a structure or building within the curtilage of a listed building to be part of a listed building it must be ancillary to the principal building, that it must have served the purposes of the principal building at the date of listing... and must not be historically an independent building".

Looking at the Ordnance Survey maps of 1855 and 1894, the boundaries and key features of Ashdell are already in place, and these have remained remarkably unchanged. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Ashdell's garden structures - such as walls, gateposts and archways - form, and always have formed, part of the same property in terms of ownership and physical occupation. As such, they are covered by the listed building protection, and listed building consent would be required for their alteration, demolition or extension.

In fact, the situation is even more clear cut, since the City Council's own document - "Sheffield's Historic Parks and Gardens", published in 1997 - not only recognises Ashdell as one of the city's most important gardens, but notes that the stone boundary wall surrounding the site, and the gate piers at the entrance are separately listed.

This brings up the issue of access - the Highways Department have asked for wider access, but this cannot be achieved without moving the gate piers, or breaching the boundary wall. This clearly suggests that any requirement for widened access WILL require listed building consent.

(3) Future obstacles

Even if members decide that the development can be approved, having considered:

(i) the planning application per se;

(ii) the proposed development's effect on the Conservation Area;

(ii) the proposed development's effect on the setting of listed buildings; and

(iv) any alterations to access necessitating listed building consent

there are more obstacles to be overcome. In an article entitled "Threat to 'oasis'", in the Sheffield Telegraph on August 14 1998, the University's Department of Estates was characteristically vague about its intentions. Director of Estates John MacDonald stated that the university would carefully consider any strong interest in returning Ashdell to family accommodation. In reality, however, it is common knowledge that the University is intending to sell Ashdell and its gardens to a neighbouring school, with the proposed dwellinghouse providing a headteacher's residence.

Thus, the University's pursuance of the proposed development is dependent upon its successful disposal of Ashdell.

However, Ashdell cannot simply be converted to school accommodation overnight:

(i) Assuming that internal and external repair or alteration is necessary to convert the house from residential to educational accommodation, listed building consent will be required.

(ii) Whether Ashdell is currently considered to be a hostel (sui generis) or a Class C2 residential institution, the new use will be Class D1 non-residential institution, meaning that an application for a material change of use is necessary.

(4) Recognition of the garden's importance

"Sheffield's Historic Parks & Gardens"

As stated earlier, Ashdell is included on the City Council's own list of important gardens, prepared only last year. Interestingly, the report's author Joan Sewell, from the University of Sheffield Department of Landscape, is supposed to be informed about any proposed development affecting these gardens; with the proposed Ashdell development, this did not occur.

The preparation of that document would suggest that the City Council is serious and positive about protecting Sheffield's landscape heritage.

If the Ashdell development was allowed to take place, the entire report would be worthless, and the whole concept of protecting these important gardens would be undermined.

The English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens

I have discussed the Ashdell case with English Heritage, and I am currently preparing a submission to their Register. Whilst there is no guarantee that Ashdell will be included, there are a number of encouraging signs:

the fact that Ashdell would seem to meet the requirement of being an "important site laid out between 1820 and 1880 which survives intact or relatively intact";

the fact that Ashdell house and the important garden features are listed;

the fact that Ashdell garden is included on Sheffield's local list;

Ashdell's "gardenesque" qualities, undoubtedly inspired (and possibly executed) by Robert Marnock, the designer of the Botanical Gardens and other gardens across the city.

Any future listing on the English Heritage register will not provide statutory protection, but will constitute a further material consideration in the determination of any planning application.

(5) Conclusion

On the basis of the matters raised in my initial letter, and the additional observations made here, I would argue that granting permission for the Ashdell development would be a tragedy for the city. It would fly in the face of Government planning guidance, and it would create a highly dangerous precedent, saying to developers that no site is too important or too special to be built upon.

In the Sheffield Telegraph, the University's Director of Estates said that the "potential of a number of properties was being explored, and in this case, the reaction of planners and residents was being tested".

The despair of local residents, angry that the University has backtracked on its promise not to build again in Broomhill, is clear. The damaging impact that the proposed development would have, and the wrong signals that it would put out, are equally clear.

I would urge members to reject this application swiftly and decisively, giving a clear message to the University that it can no longer ride roughshod over the wishes of local people, and the conservation of our city's heritage.

Yours faithfully,

Graham Soult

[Back to The Ashdell Campaign homepage]