15 SE/07/1050 - Planning Application - Change of use from conference centre to single private dwelling house as supported by statement on proposed uses and letter concerning commercial viability received 7 December 2007, Hengrave Hall, Hengrave, Bury St Edmunds for David Harris (date registered 5th July 2007)
Recommendation: Approve.
Development Control Case Officer: Stephen Burgess: Tel: (01284) 757345 THE SITE: This application relates to Hengrave Hall, a grade Ilisted building which dates from the mid 16~~century, originally occupied by Sir Thomas Kitson, a merchant. A north-east wing was added in the lgth century, and this was further extended in the 1950's. It is within the Hengrave conservation area but outside of the Housing Settlement Boundary. The Hall is the principal building within a larger estate which comprises several other ancillary buildings, some occupied as dwellings, and an expanse of parkland. Vehicular access to the estate is gained via two accesses from the AllOl, the principal gated access and a secondary access.
The estate was occupied as a private residence until 1952 when it became a boarding school and convent. In 1974 planning consent was obtained to change the use to Conference Centre which continued as its use until 2006 when purchased by the current owner.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
N/73/2459 Planning application - Change of use to a conference centre and minor \ alterations to provide additional toilet facilities permission granted February 1974 Pi
E/74/1866/P - Planning application - conversion of classroom and residential block to form two houses and a residential youth annexe to new conference centre - permission granted lStAugust 1974
E/74/1407/P - Planning application - internal alterations - approved July 1974
E/78/3107/P - Planning application - internal alterations of cloakroom area to living accommodation for community use - approved December 1978
E/91/2760/LB - Listed Building application - insertion of new window and internal alterations - approved December 1991
E/91/2986/LB - Listed Building application - alterations and repairs including installation and enlargement of windows - approved February 1992 3 THE PROPOSAL: Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the main Hall w from conference centre to private dwelling. Listed building consent is not required as the application is only for the change of use. The application excludes the northeast wing which is subject of separate applications for planning permission and listed building consent (SE/07/1053 & SE/07/1233).
The property was previously owned and occupied by a religious order of nuns who operated it as a conference centre and religious retreat. The Hall dates from the 16~~ century and was occupied as a private dwelling until the 1950's. In 1952 it became a boarding school and convent. In 1974 planning permission was granted for change of use to a conference centre and an ecumenical retreat run by the Sisters of the Assumption. The application is one of a number of applications which have been submitted relating to the Hall and ancillary buildings within in the estate which are considered elsewhere on this agenda. These applications are supported by a statement on proposed uses and letter concerning commercial viability for the estate as a whole and these documents are attached as appendices A and B to this report. CONSULTATIONS:
Highwav Authoritv : No objection
Environmental Health Services : No objections
Countv Archaeolo~icalService: No requirements
Conservation Officer:
no objection to the reversion of this property back to a single dwelling - its original use. listed building consent may be required for any alterations to the property to facilitate this change of use.
Policy and Specialist Services :
Being sited outside the housing settlement boundary for Hengrave the proposal falls to be considered as the re-use of a building in the countryside for which Policy RU4 is applicable. Having regard to the scale of the existing building and its status as a Grade Ilisted building Policy HC7 is also applicable.
Although the application is for a change of use from conference centre, the Hall has maintained a residential element throughout its recent history. However the change to a single residential property does represent a significant change.
Policy RU4 requires alternative uses to be considered, however these uses are likely to require significant alterations to the building which could have a detrimental impact on the historic fabric and character of the building conflicting with the aims of Policy HC7.
The proposed use as a single residential unit is least likely to have an impact on the historic fabric and character, effectively being a continuation of the original use and in such a context would warrant consideration ahead of the otherwise preferred uses in Policy RU4. No objection is raised on policy grounds.
Endish Heritaqe : The following, summarised, observations have been received :
The Hall is an early-mid sixteenth century mansion, the outstanding national significance of which is recognised in its inclusion on the statutory list at Grade I. English Heritage has attended a number of meetings with officers from your authority and the new owner to discuss the future of the site. The application is for the conversion of the Hall from use as a conference centre to a single private dwelling house. It is one of five separate planning applications we have been notified of for development at Hengrave Hall. PPG 15, Planning &the Historic Environment provides clear guidance in relation to the use of historic buildings in paragraphs 3.8-3.10. It states that: 'In principal the aim should be to identify the optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the listed building." - "The best use will very often be the use for which the building was originally designed, and the continuation or reinstatement of that use should certainly be the first option when the future of a building is considered." In line with the guidance the best use for Hengrave is likely to be use as a single residential dwelling, the use for which the building was originally designed English Heritage therefore have no objection to the proposed change of use. However, concern that the proposal is not for the single residential use of the Hall as an entity, but relates only to the principal block and rear extension. It is proposed that the north east wing is converted to four independent flats. The north east wing was constructed in two phases; originating from the late nineteenth century, it was later extended in the 1950s. Although not part of the original Hall, the late Victorian extension was one of a phase of alterations carried out to the Hall at this date and is part of the evolution of the building. concern that the formation of separate residential dwellings within the wing would compromise the future use of the Hall as a single residential dwelling. Although the applicant has stated that it is his intention to reside in the Hall, the presence of four independent dwellings attached to the main Hall is likely to deter other potential purchasers of the Hall as a single dwelling. There is a \ market for large-scale country houses such as Hengrave as single residential - dwellings however potential owners often expect a degree of privacy. This would be lost with independent residential use in the wing. consider the separation of these dwellings would compromise the future viability of the Hall as a single residential building. A number of the properties on the Estate have already been sold as independent dwellings. As discussed above this is likely to deter potential purchasers of the Hall as a single residential dwelling, however there is a degree of physical separation from the Hall and the other dwellings which lie to the north which may be sufficient to provide a certain level of privacy. In contrast to this the wing is attached to the Hall and residents of the flats would live in direct proximity to the owner of the Hall. The creation of additional independent dwellings on'the Estate would introduce more cars to the site, further undermining the character of the environment. Finally, while the number of independent properties on the Estate remains small, there is always the potential for these to be bought back by the owner of the Hall to return the Hall and Estate to a single entity. The \ greater the number of these independent dwellings, the less realistic an option PI. this becomes. The modern additions to the Hall, the 1950s element of the north east wing and the rear extension, are not sympathetic additions. Ideally these should be demolished, or their disadvantages offset by their use to support the occupation of the Hall. The retention of these additions with the Hall would provide an owner with the option of either demolition or using them to support the occupation of the Hall. As these are of no particular merit there would be flexibility to adapt these internally which would not be the case with the Hall itself. The formation of independent dwellings in the wing would rule out these options. It would also be best practice to consider these applications for planning permission in conjunction with listed building consent applications for the alterations required to support the proposed use. This would enable the full impact of the proposed conversion to be considered. The applicant has stated verbally that the marketing campaign of c.2005/06 demonstrated there is no market for Hengrave as a single residential dwelling, with either the wing or the ancillary buildings. However, as we advised in the pre application discussions, any proposal for a use other than single residential use should be supported by marketing evidence to demonstrate that, in line with PPG 15, this use has been fully considered as the 'Wrst option." supportive of the proposal for single residential use but consider the first option should be for the single residential use of the Hall and wing. submitted Report on Proposed Uses and letter on economic viability do not discuss the potential use of the Hall as a single residential dwelling, no marketing evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that a single residential uses has been considered as the 'first option' if minded to grant consent it is recommended that it is tied to the provision of restrictive covenants and management agreement ensuring the appropriate holistic management of site
REPRESENTATIONS:
Henqrave Parish Council: No objections
Neic~hbours:Letters have been received from local residents raising the following summarised objections:
The Gables, Henqrave
the council is being presented with a perfect opportunity to either preserve for future generations the integrity of the original Hengrave Hall, a building of outstanding importance surrounded by historic parkland, or to allow development which will destroy that integrity forever proposal to convert into four flats the 1950's extension would be a major part of that destruction. During the occupation of the Hall by the Sisters of the Assumption this extension had a clear purpose - to house the sisters and provide community facilities. Current proposal is to make a profit without any regard to the.integrity of the main building a major concern in the proposed developments at Hengrave Hall is access onto the A1101, the speed limit is not adhered to. With the sale of cottages on the estate there has already been a steady increases in numbers of vehicles using the drive traffic using the Hall when the sisters were in occupation was limited increase in the number of permanently occupied properties with the conversion of every available building into residential and the attendant increase in bathrooms using the old estate sewerage system. System uses a pumping station which also serves other residential properties and may become overloaded the large field on the right of the back drive would be a prime target for development, this would double the size of the village and create two villages divided by a very busy road
Pennv Cotta~e,Bury Road, Hengrave
' proposed developments would destroy the integrity of the Hall and its grounds forever proposal to convert the 1950's extension into flats constitutes a major part of that destruction potential traffic implications on the main road, the 30 mph speed limit is not adhered to in the past the Hall was once a school and then a Conference centre but the traffic using it was limited. The sisters had one car between them and mainly used bicycles. Occasional coachloads would arrive but rarely concern that the old sewerage system can cope concern about further development within the grounds creating a mini estate with associated traffic implications local concern that the Hall and Church has become cut off from the village behind a padlocked gate
East Cottage, Henarave Hall
No objection to conversion of former stable block to form two dwellings No objection to demolition of former gym objection raised to construction of dwellings on site of former gym replacement with mock medieval housing is surely not in context of conservation would create concentration of housing in a small area not conducive to quality t of life for residents original proposal by owner to demolish gym and return it to a courtyard and to build alms houses on the site of the former tennis courts would be more acceptable
3, Kvtson Cottaaes
strongly oppose applications to increase the number of dwellings unless there is proper provision for safe access onto the A1101 main road and to the internal approach roads the access is inadequate and never intended for present day need access also used by commercial traffic servicing on going day to day activities of an adjoining builders yard
POLICY:
Housinq in the Countrvside
The site is located in the Countryside. PPS7 and Policy RU6 of the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan 2016 seek to restrict new residential development in the Countryside. Certain exceptions are provided for in Polices RU6 and RU8 of the Replacement Local Plan 2016. They include a dwelling for a key worker essential to the operation of agriculture or forestry, the replacement of an existing dwelling, and rural affordable housing exception sites.
Re-use of redundant buildinqs in the Countrvside
In accordance with Policy RU4 of the Replacement Local Plan the re-use, conversion and subsequent alteration or extension of rural buildings for employment use; tourist accommodation; recreational uses; or community facilities will be considered favourably. If it can be demonstrated that none of these preferred uses can reasonably be accommodated then the re-use of a rural building for market housing may be appropriate. Proposals for the re-use of rural buildings must satisfy the following criteria: the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for extension or significant alteration or re-construction; any proposed alterations would not harm its appearance as a rural building or adversely affect the rural setting of the building in the locality; the nature and intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with its rural location; and the creation of a residential curtilage and associated domestic paraphernalia would not have a harmful effect on the character of the site or the surrounding area.
Listed Buildinas
While many listed buildings can sustain a degree of sensitive alteration, the extent to which works can be accommodated without loss of a building's special interest varies and, particularly where there are successive alterations, even minor works (which may individually seem to be of little importance) can cumulatively be very destructive to that interest. A high priority will be placed on the securing the retention and maintenance of all listed buildings and their settings. Demolition will not be permitted other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Neither external nor internal alterations will be permitted if they would affect adversely the architectural or historic interest of a building. (PPGl5, and Policies HC1 and HC2 of the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan 2016).
Policy HC7 relates to new uses for historic buildings and states that permission for the adaptation of an historic building to sustain a new use will be permitted only where the proposal has protected the special architectural or historic interest of the building, and has incorporated the following criteria:(i) the extent to which the historic fabric, character and appearance of the building and its setting would be retained and preserved;(ii) the impact upon the scale, height, massing, alignment, style and materials of the building, (iii) the impact upon form function and manner of the building and (iv) the extent to which the proposed use would bring community benefits and environmental enhancement
Conservation Areas
The Authority is required to pay special attention to preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas and will accord this the highest priority. New developments in conservation areas should be in harmony with their surroundings. The demolition of unlisted buildings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The loss of buildings which are of architectural or historic interest or which contribute to the character of an area will normally be resisted. (Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy ENVl of the Suffolk Structure Plan 2001 Policies HC5 and HC6 of the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan 2016 refer).
PLANNING OFFICERS COMMENTS: The issues to be considered in respect of this application are :
1. Principle of development 2. Impact upon the historic character of the hall 3. Future management of the estate Principle of development
This application relates to a very significant grade I listed building which was originally built as a private dwelling and was occupied as such from 1530 until the 1950's when it became a boarding school. Clearly the occupation of the principal sixteenth century Hall as a residential dwelling is its original function and for the majority of its existence that has been its use. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to occupy the hall as his private dwelling. The associated Church and some of the ancillary outbuildings and the estate grounds would remain under the ownership of the applicant. The proposal to revert the use back to a private dwelling is seen as being an appropriate development of the history of the building and the estate as a whole. Alternative uses and options for the future of the hall and estate have been considered by the applicant and discussed with officers. Uses such as hotel, or prestige company HQ have been considered and rejected. The property was marketed in 2005 by the previous owners because the operation of the property as a commercial conference centre was unviable or sustainable to continue as a commercial enterprise. No potential purchasers came forward with a commercial use of the hall and estate. When operated as a conference centre the property was still \ occupied in part as residential accommodation. There is support for the conversion 0 back to a residential use from the conservation officer. The proposed use as a single residential unit is least likely to have an impact on the historic fabric and character of the building, effectively being a continuation of the original use. This would therefore be in compliance with policy HC7 of the local plan. The applicant has indicated his intention to maintain and restore the main sixteenth century hall prior to its occupation as a single dwelling. Concerns have been raised by a local resident with regard to the proposal and the lost opportunity to restore the building to its original form with the demolition of the modern wing. This is not a proposal which is under consideration
Impact upon the historic character of the hall English Heritage has offered no objections to the conversion back to residential accommodation, however have expressed concern with regard to the subdivision of the 1gth/20thcentury wing into separate flats. This proposal is subject to two separate applications (SE/07/1053 & SE/07/1233) which are considered later on this schedule. \ 'Y It is considered that the previous occupation of the hall and the running of the associated estate by the Sisters became an unviable commercial enterprise. There is a necessity to achieve a viable future for the buildings in order to see them maintained and protect the fabric of the building from deterioration in the future. This proposal to revert the occupation of the hall back to a single dwelling is seen as a logical and realistic option and a natural development of the history of the hall and the estate. The estate has evolved in its long history and it is considered that the proposal represents the latest stage of that evolution which reflects the requirements of the present day. Concerns have been expressed by English Heritage and a number of residents with regard to the integrity of the hall and estate being lost with the applicant's proposals for residential use. In response to this it is the view of the local planning authority that some changes are necessary in order for the hall to survive and be maintained into the future. No significant alterations are proposed to the fabric of the building and the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Future 'manaaement of the estate
The applicant has indicated that with regard to the future management of the hall and associated estate there is a need to manage communal areas and gardens as a single unit. Therefore any future purchasers of buildings within the estate would be required to enter into leases with restrictive covenants to ensure that the overall standard of estate management can be maintained. It is considered appropriate that the applicant enters into a section 106 obligation to ensure that this is achieved.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning permission be granted subject to the applicant first entering into an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) securing restrictive lease agreements and covenants with an overall estate management plan and the following conditions (briefly):
1. Development to commence within 3 years
DECISION :
Hengrave Hall Estate Suffolk
ECONOUV &
- 7 DEC 2007 ENV~HUNMENT ;
Report on Proposed Uses
John Popham planning and environmental consultant 7 Tannery Drive Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 2SD tel: 01 284 750883 email: [email protected] Hengrave Hall Estate Su ffolk
Report on
Proposed Uses '
CONTENTS
Section Descridtion Page
PURPOSE OF REPORT 4
ESTATE BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES - ASSESSMENT OF SGNFICANCE 5
Introduction 5 Buildings and structures 5 Garden and wider landscape 7 General character and ambience of the estate 8 Assessment overview 8
GENERAL CONDITION & PRESENT USE OF BUILDINGS General condition of buildings Present use of buildings
PART 2
THE ROLE OF THE APPLICATIONS IN PRESERVING & ENHANCING EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 1 1 Introduction I I Factors underlying choice of proposed uses I I Possible uses considered I I The individual applications 12 Proposed restrictive covenants 14 Traffic and car parking 14 Conclusions relating to proposed uses 14
THE PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO ST EDMUNDSBURY REPLACEMENT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES 15 Introduction 15 Policy RU4 15 Policy RU6 16 /continued CONTENTS continued
Section Description Page
5.4 Policies H3 & RU8 16
PART 3
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS FIGURES
Figure 1 Plan of properties included in report Figure 2 Survey of Hengrave Estate - 1742 Figure 3 Survey of Hengrave Park - 1769 Figure 4 OS extract, 6" to 1 mile, 1 89 1 Figure 5 OS extract, 25" to 1 mile, 1903 Figure 6 OS extract, 6" to 1 mile, 1952
APPENDICES
Appendix I Statutory list descriptions of buildings Appendix 2 Conference centre occupancy numbers - car use and parking Hengrave Hall Estate Suffol k
Report on Proposed Uses
Notes: I. This report has been prepared at the request of St Edmundsbury Borough Council solely to inform the process of dctemining the planning applications listed in paragraph 1.1 below. Its contents should not be used or relied 1 upon for any other purpose. p. 2. Information contained in the report has been prepared from readily available historical sources and a limited visual inspection of the estate grounds, building exteriors and structures. It should only be used to assess the merits of the planning applications and not for any other purpose.
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report has been prepared in support of 7 planning applications submitted by Mr David Harris: SE/07/1050 - Henmve Hall. Change of use of Hengrave Hall fiom conference centre to single private dwelling house. SE/07/1051 - The Barn. Change of use from independent residential hostel to residential dwelling. SE/07/1052 - Greenpage Block Change of use from redundant community building to independent dwelling. SEl0711053 - North-east Wing of Henerave Hall. Continuation of use of 2 existing first ' floor flats as independent dwellings and creation of 2 further independent flats at ground - floor level within redundant accommodation. SE/07/1060 - Kennedv Block. Demolition of existing redundant gymnasium wing and reinstatement of wing to earlier original scale with conversion of existing institutional accommodation within old stable block to create 5 new 2 bedroom dwellings. SW0711 I 12 - Drivewav alterations. Re-routing of access roadway within estate to segregate from existing dwellings. SE/07/1236 - St Catherine's Cottaae. Change of use of cottage from self-contained residential annex to independent single dwelling, (See Figure 1 at the rear of this report for the location of the above properties)
1.2 The report is in three parts:
Part 1 contains an assessment of the buildings and structures on the estate describing: their historic importance and significance; their hierarchical interrelationship; their relationship with the garden and the wider landscape; and their general condition and present use.
Part 2 examines how the current applications would assist in the preservation and enhancement of the existing buildings and structures; considers the proposals in relation to relevant St Edmundsbury Borough Replacement Local Plan 2016 policies; and describes the opportunities for general enhancement of the estate and the possibilities for public access.
Part 3 Overall conclusions
PART I
2 ESTATE BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES - ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 In this section the principal features of the estate are identified and their significance1explained. The buildings and landscape are assessed separately, but there is an Assessment overview at the end of the section. The statutory list descriptions of the buildings and structures and a plan identifying them is at Appendix 1.
.I 2.2 Buildings and structures
2.2.1 The significant buildings and structures are: The Hall (Grade 1). A mansion of outstanding quality commenced around 1525 with buff brick and limestone ashlar walls and clay pantile roofs. It is one of the most impressive houses of the later years of Henry V111. The original house was altered in 1775. Further alterations were made between 1897 and 1900 when the interior was significantly modified and a triple gabled extension added to the NE. There are fbnctional mid C20 additions to NE and N of the main dwelling. The exceptional quality of parts of the structure is epitomised by the design of the richly decorated oriel over the front doorway. The interior also has many fine original features and late Victorian work of merit. The oblique approach to the Hall means that it is hard fully to appreciate its imposing character - something which would have been readily apparent to a Tudor visitor arriving directly from the south.
' 'Significance' means aesthetic, historic. scientific social or spiritual value for past, present and future generations. Church of St John ate ran*^ (Grade I). A beautiful small early CIS church of flint with limestone dressings, with what is possibly a pre-conquest round tower. Internally it has fine monuments. Forms an admirable architectural foil to the adjacent, contrastingly large, Hall. Stable block indudinp the former laundrv, ndw the Priest's House*, Kennedl Block excludinp the wmnasium winp. and East and West Cottapes (Grade 11). This C 16 former stable block of mainly red stocks with some limestone hood- moulded and mullioned windows and a plain tile roof lies to the NW of the mansion. Its size, form and materials make it the dominant feature in this service area and emphasise the once great status of the estate. Attached to the NE comer of the stables is an attractive former laundry block of c.1900 with red brick walls, a plain tile roof, and central ventilation louvre with a pyramidal roof and weathervane. Now known as East and West Cottages this building is the most important feature as one approaches the rear of the estate buildings fiom the NE entrance. The Eastern Gate Lodge* includinp entrance gates. Bury Road (Grade 11). The lodge dates fiom 1848. It is built in the Gothic style of gault brick with limestone dressings under a fish-scale tiled roof. Combined with the entrance gates the lodge makes a fitting entrance for the Hall. The Garden Room* (Grade 11). A c.1900 timber Framed and brick-nogged structure the Garden Room is apparently constructed from materials taken from the Hall in 1900. Located immediately to the NW of the Hall in a comer of the Italian garden, while quite assertive in character, it is made visually subservient by its proximity to the house. The Brldee. Stonewall, ~iemand iron pates soutb of the Hall* (Grade 11). This is a visually important structure which marks the site of an earlier bridge which crossed the moat at this point and would have been a focal point as one approached the Hall fiom the south. Today part of its function is to provide a focal point when Imking south from the Hall, as well as drawing the eye beyond in a manner that makes the approach avenue more readily apparent. Greengaee Block. Map evidence suggests that this block was constructed about 1900 with its eastern potion in part formed from an earlier structure. Built mainly of brick and plain tiles it is substantial in length forming the S comer of the walled garden to which it relates in scale and proportion. St Catherine's Cottape. Probably originally formerly used by the garden staff, this small and simple single storey, post 1900, building, is of flint, with brick and some stone detailing, including hood-moulded and mullioned windows. Of pleasing simple character it performs a valuable hction by providing punctuation in the length of wall between Greengage and the Priest's House. Wroueht iron pates - including those to the west ofthe Hall and the wrought iron field gate to the south-west (included in the Hall listed building description), those at the eastern lodge (included in the lodge description), and at the bridge (included in the bridge description), and the mall hand gate to the churchyard. Wrought iron gates are very much a feature of the estate. -Walls - including either side of the front of the Hall, surrounding the churchyard, running along part of the north of the Hall extending to the Garden Room, and
Item marked with an asterisk thus are not the subject of planning applications but have been included in the overall assessment tn give a balanced picture.
\ Is between the Greengage Block, St Catherine's and the Priest's House. Mostly of flint, these provide essential physical baniers and visual links between all the important buildings and features close to the Hall. Without them much of the cohesive quality of the group of buildings to the north of the Hall would be lost. Walled Garden walls*. The kitchen garden dates from after 1742 and before 1769 when it is first depicted on an estate survey. Of C 18 or C I 9 date and built of red brick with stone copings, possibly in part using earlier components, the walls are an important feature to the NNE of the Hall and are also very much in view on entry to the estate fiom the northernmost access.
2.2.2 The buildings or parts of buildings which are not assessed as significant are: The c.1960~extension to the north-east of the Hall (NE Wing) The modem flat roofed extension to the north of the Hall The gymnasium at the north-west corner of the Kennedy Block The Barn
2.3 Garden and wider landscape
2.3.1 Although clearly of sufficient merit the garden and its surrounding parkland are not included in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest,
2.3.2 Summarv outline histoy. There is a record of employing a gardener at Hengrave as early as 1575. A license to empark was granted by Elizabeth I in 1589, and the principal avenue dates fiom around this period. In the 1760s the garden lay to the north of the Hall beyond a bowling green, with the kitchen garden immediately to its east in its present position, Richard Woods was employed to improve the grounds in 1777. In the C19 the great avenue was replanted with a mixture of lime and cedar of Lebanon, and the cment west, 'Italian', garden was formed.
2.3.3 Principal mrden and landsca~efeatures. The principal features are: The south entrance front to the Hall which was originally the terminal point of the straight road that formed its entrance. The 'Italian' garden to the west of the Hall including its clipped yews, and small lily pond and fountain, bounded to its west by a north-south walk with a gate to the parkland beyond and steps down to the garden. The east entrance from the Bury - Mildenhall road. The ornamental lake (now a fishing lake) to the south-east of the Hall. The trees within the garden, particularly those which flank the Hall to its E & W. The churchyard. The high-walled kitchen garden. The walls and perimeter tree belt adjoining the Bury - Mildenhall road. The parkland beyond the present boundary including the great south avenue, the peripheral belt and clumps and individual trees within the park3
' Not in ownership The open area to the NW of East and West cottages and the walled garden, padally planted with fruit trees.
2.3.4 The car parks to the east of the Hall and church are large and serve a utilitarian purpose but they are not 'significant' (see footnote I).
2.3.5 While a more detailed assessment of the garden and the parkland landscape is outside the scope of this report Figures 2 - 6 depict the immediate area around the Hall, and in some cases the park, at the following dates: 1742, 1769, 189 1, 1903 and 1952. Not only are the garden and park important in their own right but they also play a crucial role in providing both an immediate and wider setting for the Hall and its outbuildings.
General character and ambience of the estate \ -* 2.4.1 The approach to the property in both directions along the A 1 10 I, with its tree belt and perimeter wall, signal the enclosed world of an estate which on entry via the lodge opens up into a series of compartments. First one travels the tree lined entrance drive arriving at an open area (now car park) to the north before passing the church and approaching the fiont of the Hall. From here the original straight approach fiom the south (giving a distant view) is apparent but the sense is one of enclosure and surprise at the size of the mansion in such a contained space mainly defined by tree cover. Similarly the church is surrounded by its small, almost miniature, walled and tree lined graveyard. To the west of the Hall the Italian garden is a fbrther enclosed area which abuts the mansion and has trees to its north and south. Although this garden has a limited view to the west over open landscape beyond the property, it possesses a strong feeling of enclosure. To the rear of the Hall the remaining buildings are close to the house, with short spaces between them defined and visually contained by walls of varying heights. From the few metres of estate road that the leads fiom Greengage to Kennedy (stable block) to the stable yard itself, the strong sense of containment continues all the way with, in places, trees overtopping the walls adding to the feeling of enclosure. To the north-east of the Hall the walled garden dominates, and forms yet another enclosure. It is only when one '! looks north beyond the existing buildings that the landscape takes on a more open w character.
2.4.2 The walls and trees which compartmentalise the landscape and the form and materials of the buildings (see paras. 2.4.1 & 2.4.2 below) all contribute to a sensitive composition the quality of which would very easily be lost if any element was to be undesirably altered or destroyed. At the human level the relative proximity of the buildings and their lack of feature defined boundaries make for a close knit pattern of living which requires co-operation between their occupiers, the need to ensure that all uses are fully compatible, and the need for the gardens and landscape to be managed as a single unit.
2.5 Assessment overview 2.5,l While the Hall and church are clearly architecturally outstanding in their own right it is in combination with the other historic buildings and structures on the estate that they take on a wider significance. This is in part because of their functional and architectural relationship to the other buildings. The stable block, laundry, the garden room, and the gardener's building (St Catherine's) were all constructed to perform uses which related to the occupation of the mansion. The hnctions of these buildings dictated both their built form and their close location to the Hall. Their architectural styles reflect the status of the Hall's owners and the fashions of the periods in which they were built. Their materials are largely those of the east anglian building tradition.
2.5.2 The buildings and structures are not only historically connected by their functions but physically and visually by the walls which play such an important part in the area around the mansion - cornpartmentalising uses as required, but also helping to join all together into a single cohesive unit. This cohesion is in areas strengthened by the mix of red and buff bricks, and limestone and flint which time and, in part, limewash have bleached to an even tone. A final integrating touch is added by the use of an estate colour - olive drab - for the paintwork.
2.5.3 Beyond the buildings the garden provides important immediate surroundings which in part enclose the heart of the estate as well as providing a setting in which it can be properly enjoyed. The approach to the Hall through the garden signals the status of the mansion. Beyond the iron gates to the south and west of the garden, the park with its avenue and clumps of trees extends as far as the eye can survey.
2.5.4 If the estate is to survive in its present form, and the elements and features described above are to be conserved, it will be essential to ensure that uses are found which do not adversely impact on the character of the existing buildings, the landscape compartments around the Hall, and the overall amenity of the estate and its occupants; satisfactory control is maintained over alterations and extensions to existing buildings; any new buildings or structures respect the existing listed buildings, enhance the character and appearance of the estate, and can properly to be seen as part of the estate's organic history reflecting cumulative changes of use and ownership; the external redecoration of buildings is subject to control; adequate.provision is made for the ongoing management of the garden and structures, the lake, and the wider grounds within the control of the estate.
3 GENERAL CONDITION & PRESENT USE OF BUILDINGS
3.1 General condition of buildings
3.1.1 The following table summarises the present condition of the buildings for which planning permission has been applied (see list in paragraph I. I above). The assessment has been made fiom a very limited ground level external inspection of the relevant buildings and structures in order to give a preliminary indication of the state of their repair for the purpose of this report only.
The condition of buildings has been assessed on the following basis: Good = G GoodFair = G/F Fair = F FairIPoor = F/P Poor = P
Properhr Condition Comment Hengrave Hall G In general the Hall has been well maintained. Hall - NE wing flats G/F Greengage Block G/F Main fabric is in generally sound condition, but 1950s work in need of attention.
Kennedy Block G/F Original portion of stable block is in good condition. Gymnasium is in fair condition. The Barn G/F Generally sound condition.
3.2 Present use of buildings
3.2.1 The table below indicates the current use of the buildings, or parts of buildings, for which planning permission is sought.
Boildinp Use Hengrave Hall Formerly conference centre. Currently unoccupied. Hall - NE wing 1'' floor 2 independent first floor flats. Currently unoccupied. Hall - NE wing ground floor Redundant ancillary part of Hall. Greengage Block Redundant community build in^ including workshop. St Catherine's Residential use. Currently unoccupied. Kennedy Block Institutional accommodation and redundant gymnasium wing. The Barn Independent residential hostel
Note: The Lodge, Priest's Cottage, Kennedy Cottage, East & West Cottages and St Mary's Cottage have been sold and are occupied as private dwellings. PART 2
4 THE ROLE OF THE APPLICATIONS IN PRESERVING & ENHANCING EXISTING BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This section considers the factors underlying the choice of the proposed uses for the buildings and explains how the selected uses would assist in the preservation and enhancement of the existing buildings and structures.
4.2 Factors underlying choice of proposed uses
4.2.1 The starting point for considering possible uses was the overall aim of the long tern conservation of the buildings, structures and landscape. This resulted in the identification of a number of factors against which proposed uses were considered. The uses needed to be appropriate for the individual buildings and the land within their curtilages. The selected uses needed to be mutually compatible with one another. a The need to ensure that when properties were re-sold in the fiture covenants restricting alterations to them and their use could be maintained. The proposed uses would not be in conflict with the conservation and future management of garden, and that part of the wider parkland landscape within the property. By comparison with uses for which there are current planning permissions vehicular traffic to and from the property should be reduced as much as practicable. The proposed uses were economically viable.
4.3 Possible uses considered
4.3.1 Accompanying this report is a report by Merrifields, Chartered Surveyors (dated 3.12.07). which considers the economic viability of a range of commercial uses for the application properties. The Merrifields report examines the appropriateness and commercial viability of seeking to convert the application properties to uses which meet the criteria in St Edmundsbury Borough Replacement Local policy RU4,Re-use of ma1 buildings in the counhyside. These include employment, tourist accommodation, and recreational and community facilities. 4.3.2 .Continued use of the Dro~ertvas a conference centre. The report concludes that continuation of the conference centre use would not be viable, The previous owners found it unviable even as a "not for profit" operation. Furthermore the use was relatively small scale and would not be able to compete with other operations in the region without prohibitive new build and refurbishment costs. The premises are not large enough without expanding them. The cost of this would be excessive and would impact upon the residential amenities of adjoining dwellings within the site. There would be design issues in relation to the listed status of much of the property. Sustainability concerns would include traffic considerations and poor public transport.
4.3.3 Alternative commercial uses. The conclusion reached is that alternative commercial uses would not meet required viability criteria - especially if these uses were to be mixed with residential use. The cost of refurbishment would be too great to provide an adequate return on any investment made. The buildings are not suitable or capable of being used for light industrial purposes. For offices the achievable rental level would be -i lower than that required to make the project viable, and there would be significant traffic generation.
4.3.4 Holidav accommodation. In relation to holiday accommodation Memifields explain that Hengrave is too far from the coast of East Anglia and Cambridge to attract a sufficient volume of lettings to justify the high cost of conversion when compared with the anticipated return on the investment that would be required. It is unlikely that a finance house would offer enough finding to undertake a scheme.
4.3.5 Recreational and commnnitv uses. Recreational uses would generate insufficient income to be viable, and community uses would not be income producing.
4.3.6 Additional matters relatinp to commercial uses. Memfields also draw attention to a number of additional factors relating to commercial use: Rates liabilitv. The changes in empty rates liability will have a significant impact on speculative commercial schemes; Commercial uses. It is unlikely that tenants would be prepared to enter into normal full repairing liability leases, leaving a further burden to fall on the landlord. -\ Conflict of uses. In urban areas mixed use schemes work well, but in rural areas there is often a conflict. Covenants restricting alterations. The use of covenants could restrict expanding businesses. Public tranmort and facilities. With poor public transport and no facilities in the village it is inevitable that everyone would use private motor vehicles. Parkina and access. With the deficiency in public transport it would be inevitable that more cars would park in the Hall area than is desirable.
4.4 The individual applications
4.4.1 This section comments on the Memifields report in relation to each of the individual applications below. 4,4.2 SW07/1050. Hengrave Hall. The continued use of the Hall as a conference centre would be neither viable nor sustainable having regard to the lack of facilities in the village, the absence of public transport, and the high traffic figures that would be generated. It is unlikely that a corporate owner would have the interest and resources properly to maintain the grounds. It is clear, therefore, that a return to private ~sidential use is the most appropriate option, provided this can be tied in with appropriate sympathetic uses for the associated properties.
4.4.3 SE/07/1053. NE wing of Hengrave Hall. The two existing and two proposed flats in the north-east wing of Hengrave Hall are not suitable for any purpose other than residential use given their immediate proximity to what will become the principal dwelling. Other uses would not be compatible with the close knit pattern of living required to ensure the success of the venture including sharing the use of parts of the gardens and landscape.
4.4.4 SE/07/1052. Greengage Block. This property does not possess a layout which is suitable for modem office use, but is an ideal candidate for conversion to residential use. Not only would conversion to a commercial or holiday use be unviable but it would be unlikely to make proper use of the walled garden -the latter not being viable commercially and not being of benefit for holiday use. Residential use would achieve the successful conversion of the buildings and provide an outstanding garden for an enthusiast. It would also be fully compatible with the general living pattern required for the success of the overall residential scheme.
4.4.5 SE/07/1236. St Catherine's Cottage. Apart from viability issues neither holiday nor business use would be appropriate given the exceptionally close proximity of the dwelling to the Hall, the character of the immediate area, and the lack of a defined curtilage. The cottage has been used as a residential dwelling since 19~2~.It should remain as an independent dwelling long term control over which can be satisfactorily obtained by appropriate covenants.
4.4.6 SE/07/1060. Kennedy Block. This block also lends itself best to residential use given the immediate proximity of the two existing dwellings within the block and east and west cottages adjoining it to the north-east. Here too the enclosed close knit form of the former stable yard would not be suitable for office and holiday uses which would impact adversely upon its quiet residential character with significantly increased human and vehicular use in a manner that would not be appropriate in this locality.
4.4.7 SE/07/1051. The Barn. Neither business use nor holiday accommodation would be viable for the reasons explained in the Memfields report. Furthermore, the use of this building for any purpose other than residential would also lead to adverse impacts on other residential properties in the immediate vicinity because of increased MICand activity.
'Confirmed in a statutory declaration by Sister Chrinine Charlwd dated 31 Mmh 2006 4.5 Proposed restrictive covenants
4.5.1 Given the: 6 tight knit character of the area around the Hall; the close proximity of the dwellings; the need to preserve the character of the dwellings by controlling alterations to them; and the need to manage communal areas and the gardens as a single unit; purchasers of dwellings will be required to enter into leases with restrictive covenants and a pre-emption.agreement. This will help to ensure that the general character of the area is conserved (see sub-section 2.3 above) and the overall standard of management can be maintained. Samples of a typical lease and pre-emption agreement are supplied with this report.
4.6 Traffic and car parking
4.6.1 Appendix 2 contains Hall occupancy and car parking information supplied by the Sisters of the Assumption, who occupied the Estate fiom 195 1, and ran the Hall as a conference centre from 1974 - 2006. During the period when the property was being used a conference centre there was a non-resident staff of 8 who used a combination of the Centre car and their own vehicles to travel to and FFom the property. In addition to this there was a total residential capacity of 161, excluding the camping site for which no figures are available. The car park on the two former tennis courts has a minimum capacity of 85 spaces. Given staff movements, the conference changeover rates indicated by the Sisters, and the additional use of the premises for day confe~nces,it is estimated that of the average number of daily vehicle movements is approximately 115. However this masks the peaks of changeover days and one day conferences (2 - 3 days per week) for which the average number of daily movements is approximately 240. From these figures it is readily apparent that the proposed change of use would lead to a significant permanent reduction in traffic movement.
4.7 Conclusions relating to proposed uses
4.7.1 lt is clear fiom this section of the report that the continuation of the conference centre use, and commercial. holiday, recreational and community uses would not be a~~ropriatefor the estate because thev are neither viable nor suitable. It is important to remember that these conclusions have already been confirmed. The convent sisters were corn~elledto relinauish the property because their communitv. even with the occupancy rates thev achieved, was unable to make the conference centre and the other facilities pay their wav. Then. when the oroperty was put up for sale in 2005. in a more buoyant market than at oresent. no-one came forward who was prepared to take on the existinq uses for which there are consents. Furthermore, the only use which meets the selection criteria set out in paragraph 4.2.1 above, Factors underlying choice ofproposed uses, is residential. Of all the uses considered residential would also be the most sustainable given the lack of facilities in the village and poor public transport. 4.7.2 Residential use would be the best means by which the general character and ambience of the Estate could be preserved and enhanced (see sub-section 2.3 above). It would enable the unified appearance of the Estate to be maintained by the use of restrictive covenants to control alterations, paint colours to properties, and inappropriate domestic encroachments; the church, gardens and surrounding landscape to be maintained and managed as a single entity; a low intensity of use which would be appropriate for an area that is sensitive to change; and a permanent and marked reduction to be made in car parking and vehicular traffic which at its fonner level was conflict with both the character and ambience of the Estate. In addition local residents would be able to continue to use the church. It would be available for weddings, funerals, and services by arrangement as at present. While the Hall and its grounds will be in private ownership the intention is that they will be made available for local community use.
5 THE PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO ST EDMUNDSBURY BOROUGH REPLACEMENT LOCAL PLAN POLICIES
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Section 5 examines the proposals against the relevant policies of the St Edmundsbury Replacement Local Plan 2016, in particular policies RU4, RU6, RU8, and H3.
5.2 Policy RU4 - Re-use of rural buildings in the countryside
5.2.1 Policy RU4 states that the re-use, conversion and subsequent alteration or extension of rural buildings for a employment (defined as light industrial and ofice uses and, where appropriate, limited small scale storage); tourist accommodation; recreational uses (including riding stables, livery and sports pavilions); community facilities will be considered favourably. The policy goes on to state that "Ifit can be demonstrated thar none of the above preferred uses can reasonably be accommodated then the re-use of a rural buildingfor markt housmg may be appropriate ." 5.2.2 It is submitted that, for the detailed reasons given in section 4 (above), none of the first preference uses suggested in this policy "can reasonably be accommodated" within the application buildings. Attention is also drawn to the fact that when the property was sold in 2005 no-one came forward who was prepared to continue with its commercial use. Finally, it should be noted that the buildings under consideration are not essentially "rural" in character. The policy is rightly aimed at buildings such as redundant fann buildings "in the countryside", whereas the buildings in this case are located within a group which is predominantly of a residential nature. All buildings, with the sole exception of Greengage, are either already fully residential or have planning permission for a permanent residential element which is the predominant use. In respect of the latter, Kennedy has planning permission for accommodation which will hold 43 guests, and The Barn up to 40 (see table in Appendix 2).
5.2.3 Paragraph 5.1 5 of the Local Plan, which forms part of the supporting text to Policy 1 RU4, states that, while re-use for other purposes will be regarded as "favourable over re- - use for market housing", "The conversion of rural buildings can also mah a contribution to housing provision where the building is suitable for conversion and its location is sustainabIe and environmentally acceptable". Since, in this case, the re-use of the buildings for other purposes has been demonstrated not to be suitable or viable, market housing would be the appropriate choice. This is reinforced by the fact that the location is clearly not sustainable for a conference centre or business use for the detailed reasons explained in paragraphs 4.3,6 (Additional matters relating to commercial uses) and 4.5.1 (Traffic and car parking), above. By contrast, use of the buildings for housing would be significantly the best environmental solution in this instance and the most sustainable of any of the uses considered.
5.3 Policy RU6 - Housing development in the rural areas
5.3.1 This policy makes it clear that outside housing settlement boundaries, which is the position in this instance, new housing development will not be permitted in the rural areas except for key workers and the replacement of existing dwellings. This policy has to be considered alongside other policies in the plan. In this instance, Policy RU4 (considered above) has also to be taken into account. In contrast to Policy RU6, Policy RU4 expressly provides for new dwellings in rural areas in appropriate circumstances -circumstances which have been demonstrated to exist in this case. On balancing the policies it is suggested that to grant of permission would not be in conflict with overall policy, and would be fully justified in this case.
5.4 Policies H3 & RUS - Agordable housing, & Rural housing exception sites 5.4.1 It is accepted that taken together the proposcd'developmenu trig er the requirement for affordable housing in that, in all, the equivalent of 8 new dwellingsP are proposed. This figure exceeds the 5 dwellings mentioned in Replacement Local Plan policy H3. However, because the proposed housing units are located in 'countryside' any provision for housing would need to be on the basis that it was a rural housing exception site. Local plan policy RU8 applies to exception sites - this relates to sites that adjoin but are outside a housing settlement boundary or built up area of a 'village'. Hengrave is categorised as a village for this purpose. The applicant is offering a site for the housing, which adjoins the built up area, and has access to the highway (Bury - Mildenhall Road) directly from the northernmost entrance to the Hall. At the time of preparing this report a housing needs survey is under way to see whether an identified local need for housing exists.
5.4.2 The return of the Hall to residential use, and the application relating to the Barn, have been discounted fiom the calculation. Policy H3 makes it clear that its application extends to both 'hew build and conversion schemes". The Hall application is for neither of these nor is it a "proposed dwelling" since it is clear that it has always been a 'dwelling'. Prior to 1952 it was a "private residence". In 1952 it received planning permission for a change of use to convent and boarding school, and later in 1974 became a conference centre. Throughout the time these uses were in being however, the Hall always retained a significant element of permanent residential accommodation - a fact acknowledged in the Borough's Planning Policy and Specialist Services comments to the Development Control section in its note on the current application (6 September 2007, 2"d paragraph). Therefore the change of use - in this case the reversion to a single private dwelling, does not represent the addition of either a dwelling (which already exists) or permanent residential accommodation. lndeed in terms of residential accommodation it will be a significant reduction over what exists at present. For these reasons it has been discounted from the calculation of the number of affordable housing units.
5.4.3 In relation to The Barn it already comprises permanent independent residential accommodation possessing a full range of rooms including kitchen, living area, bathroom facilities and a dormitory. In terms of the provision of accommodation this represents a dwelling, particularly because kitchen facilities are provided and it was run independently from the Hall.
5.4.4 Based on the fact that, discounting the Hall and The Barn, a total of 8 new dwellings are being applied for, and assuming the provision of affordable housing at the 40% rate, the number of affordable dwellings needed will be 3. These are offmd on the site identified above (see para. 5.4.1) the provision of which will be guaranteed to the Borough by a unilateral section 106 obligation.
' 2 grounds floor flats in the Hall.1 at Greengage. and 5 at Kennedy.
\ 29 PART 3
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The following overall conclusions are reached: 1. The Hall and Church are of outstanding historic interest (para. 2.2.1 above). 2. The other historic buildings and structures which fall within the current Estate are of historic interest and significance (2.2.1). 3. The garden and wider landscape, while not included in the statutory register are of sumcient merit to be so (2.3.1). 4. The buildings, garden and landscape have a wider significance when considered as a single entity (2.5.1 - 2.5.3). 3 5. The general character of the Estate is one of the Hall surrounded by a series of - relatively small compartments which together form a sensitive composition the quality of which would very easily be lost if any element was to be undesirably altered or destroyed (2.4.2). 6. The close knit pattern of the buildings and their lack of feature boundaries is such that their future uses will need to be fully compatible, and the gardens and landscape will need to be managed as a single unit if the character of the Estate is to be retained (2.4.2). 7. It will be essential to find uses for the Estate which do not adversely impact upon the character of the existing buildings and landscape and to ensure that adequate provision is made for the fhture management of the property a whole (2.5.4) 8. The general condition of the buildings is assessed as 'fair' - 'good' (3.1 .I). 9. The continued use of the Hall as a conference centre, and the conversion of the remainder of the buildings to light industrial, commercial or recreational uses would be neither viable nor appropriate. Furthermore, given the lack of facilities in the village and poor public transport such uses would not be sustainable (4.3,4.4). 10. The sisters relinquished the property because, even with their occupancy rates, they were unable to make the facilities pay their way. When the property was sold in 2005 > no-one came forward who was prepared to take on the existing uses (4.7.1). - 11. Restrictive covenants and pre-emption agreements would assist in the conservation of the general character of the area and it is therefore proposed to use them (4.5). 12. While the conference centre was in operation the daily average of vehicle movements was 1 15. On the 2 - 3 days a week, when there was a change-over or a day conference the average movement figure was approximately 240. A change to residential use would lead to a significant permanent reduction in traffic movement (4.6.1). 13. Residential use would be the best means bv which the general character and ambien of the estate could be preserved and enhanced (4.7.2). In addition, of all the uses considered it would be the most sustainable given the lack of facilities in the village and poor public transport (4.7. I). 14. On balancing the tests in Replacement Local Plan policies RU4 & RU6 a grant of planning permission for residential development would not be in conflict with overall policy, and would be fullyjustified in the circumstances of this case (5.2.1 & 5.3.1). 15. To comply with Local Plan policies H3 & RUB, 3 affordable dwellings will be required the provision of which will be guaranteed to the Borough by a unilateral s. 106 obligation (5.4).
od)m
Hmgravc Hall Estate - Repat- Proposed developmmt - 3.12.07
FIGURE 2
prrmnrng 7 Tannery Unve BuySt Etlmundr SufTolk lP33 2SD
Reproduced from (be Ordnrmcc Soymap witb the permiaids of Tbr Controller olHW0- Llctncc no ES 100014a23 .*
John Popbam planning mdenvfronmenlal cmlfant 7 Tannery Drlvc Bury St EdmonL SuKolk IPU 2SD
JOB Hugrrvc Hdl hute ------Saffolk -- DrUWING OS mnp ubsct
DATE 1903 SCALE 35" to I m'le -
TL 86 NW HENGRAVE BURY ROAD 4/56- The Lodge GV I1 The eastern gate lodge to Hengrave ~ali.1848 on tablet. In the Gothic style. 1 storey, 2 windows. Gault brick walls with limestone dressings and coped gables with heelers. Fish-scale tiled roof and red brick chimneys with circular shafts having diaper decoration, moulded caps and bases. Limestone mullioned and transomed windows with hood-moulds, arched headed lights-and leaded casements, A splayed bay window to right of entrance with crenellated parapet and hood-moulds, Gabled entrance porch with hood-moulded panelled door having nail-head decoration. Plaque over door with arms of Thomas Gage. Listing NGR: 128258268650 TL 86 NW HENGRAVE 4/46 Church of St. John Lateran 14.7.55 I Formerly the parish church, now chapel to Hengrave Hall Conference Centre. Nave, chancel, west tower, south porch, north aisle and chapel. Flint walling with limestone dressings, low-pitched metal-finished roofs. Circular tower in coursed flint, possibly prdonquest; clock, with hour-hand only, in west face. Round-headed north and south belfj openings. Chancel has late C13 windows, 3- light in eastwall, 2 2-light in south wall. Alterations for Sir Thos. . Hemegrave (died 1419) include: south porch, restored C19 in happed flint with flushwork, with labelled arched doorway, south nave doorway similar but more ornate with angel finials, tall tower arch. Early C16 alterations for Sir Thos. Kitson (died 1540) include: north aisle and chapel with large 3-light windows, raising of nave walls with flushwork parapets, insertion of 2 large south windows, north arcade with clustered columns and small clerestory windows above, arch-braced cambered tie-beam roofs throughout (renewedheavily restored late C19). A segmental brick rood-stair turret in south wall perhaps CIS. South door C15, plain. Octagonal tmceried C15 font. Late C 13 wall paintings of S.S. Catherine and Margaret on south chancel window reveal. Early C15 painted inscription above south door in porch. Some £kagrnents of C 16 glass in aisle windows. Canopied monument to Margaret, Countess of Bath, with her husband, John Bourchier, beside her, and below her first husband Sir Thos. Kitson of Hengrave Hall. An alabaster mural monument to Lord Darcy, also in the chapel. In the chancel is a table tomb to John Bourchier, 1556, who was Lord Fitzwarren. Also a magnificent tomb of Sir Thos. Kitson, son of the above, with effigies of himself, his two wives, Jane Pagett and Elizabeth Cornwallis. A bust commemorates Sir Thos. Gage who lived at the Hall, died 1741. The monuments have much original colour and almost fill the chancel and chapel. For details of church and monuments, John Gage, History of Suffok, Thingoe Hundred, 1838. Listing NGR: TL8244968576 TL 86 NW HENGRAVE 4/47 Hengrave Hall 14.7.55 I A large mansion built round a courtyard, incorporating the earlier de Hemegrave wing, 1525-1538, by John Eastawe, for Sir Thomas Kitson, merchant. Buff brick and limestone ashlar walls, clay plaintile roofs. Original symmetrical front altered 1775; central gateway with octagonal turrets flanked by 3 bay ranges terminated by similar turrets. Mullion and transome windows with hood moulds and arched heads to Lights; leaded casements and fixed lights, with rectangular, diamond and stained glass; oriel window to chapel of 3 lights with Zlight flanking windows on west side; similar oriel on east side replaced in C18 by mullioned and trmsomed windows and octagonal buttresses. Four-centred arched gateway with receding orders and enriched spandrels; recessed doorway with original double panelled doors. Gateway flanked by ornamental stone pillars. Over the doorway is a richly decorated trefoiled oriel, late Perpendicular in design, with Rennaissance detailing, retaining much original colouring (compare Thornbury, Glows). Flanking the gateway, 2 octagonal turrets with Crocket-ornamented onion finials. At the east end C18 crenellated parapets, and at the west end coped gables. Ornate red brick chimneys have (except one stone pair) brick circular moulded shafts. Major alterations 1775 and again 1897-1 900 when north wing built on site of demolished de Hemegrave wing. Splayed stone mullioned and transomad oriel to Great Hall with carved figure finials and stone roof with fan-vaulted soffit and traceried panelled rear arch; good heraldic glass. Hall has c. 1900 oak hammerbeam roof, carved screen and gallery, Oriel in chapel has complete C16 painted glass on Biblical themes. Other C16 work includes: stone fireplaces and oak doorcases all with ogee-moulded chamfers, 4-centred heads and sunk spandrels; first-floor caved ceilings of trefoil form, with moulded cornice fixed to both lobes, the coupled-rafter roofs having purlins trenched over the collars. Large limestone fireplace c.1600 in Dining Room, in Rennaissance style with Ionic pilasters and pediment framing painted coat of arms. On the chimney breast further painting with strapwork and mermaids etc., supporting coat of anns. Alterations C. 1900 include: strapwork plaster ceilings in 2 rooms, oak panelling, fireplaces, staircases, radiators in first floor corridors with brass cases pierced with fleurde-lys and escutcheons, wallpaper by Morris & Co. in several rooms. 100 yards west a pair of wrought iron garden gates with flanking railings; 1SO yards south-west a wrought iron field-gate with scrolly bracing, cast iron traceried piers with onion caps and fleur-de- lys finials. John Wilby, composer of madrigals, lived here 1592-1628. For detailed description and history, John Gage, History of Suffolk, Thingoe Hundred, 1838 and History and Antiquities of Hengrave in SufTolk, 1822. Listing NGR: TL8238968570 4/49 Garden room 10 yards west - of Hengrave Hall - I1 Garden room, c. 1900. 1 storey, 2 windows. Timber-fiamed with brick-nogging. Clay pantiled roof, gabled hips, deep open eaves, red brick chimney with moulded circular shaft, and gabled casement dormer. Oak joinery, identical to early C16 work in Hengrave Hall and evidently taken fiom it c. 1900, includes square-headed 2- and 4-light mullioned windows with arched heads to each light, and doorcase with arched head and carved spandrels. Listing NGR: TL8235468570 TL 86 NW HENGRAVE 415 0 Bridge, Stonewall, piers and iron gates 150 yards south of Hengrave Hall - I1 Bridge and gateway, c.1850. Bridge faced with limestone; 2 pointed arches and 3 buttresses on each face, low parapet walls linked at south end to a pair of limestone octagonal piers with onion finials on crenellated cornice, supporting wrought iron gates with spear-head standards. Flanking stone wall terminated by second pair of piers. The bridge carried the former main drive across the moat to Hengrave Hall and replaces an earlier bridge on the same site. Listing NGR: 12824756841 1 TL 86 NW HENGRAVE 4/48 Stable block 20 yards west - of Hengrave Hall 11 Lodgings for Hengrave Hall Conference Centre, formerly stables. Early or mid- C16. 2 storeys, a long range with various gabled projections, and at the north end mid-C20 alterations and extensions. Butt bricks; some red brick walling perhaps incorporated f3om an earlier structure. Parapet gables with stone ball finials; some stepped buttresses up to eaves height. Plain tiled roofs with C19 red brick chimneys having diagonally-set square shafts. Some C16 limestone hood-moulded and mullioned windows of 2 and 3 lights, some with leaded glazing; C19 timber casements and C20 casements under brick segmental arches. Zstorey west entrance porch with C16 1st floor window, and boarded entrance door with rectangular fanlight. Linked to the building at the north end a laundry block, c.1900, one storey, red brick walls and plain tiled roof; central ridge. Ventilation louvre with pyramid roof and surmounting weathervane. Cruciform casements. Central open gabled entrance porch on brick plinth, with turned balusters in the Elizabethan style. Listing NGR: TL823 1 168602 APPENDIX 2 Conference centre occupancy numbers - car use and parking
Cornmunitv composition
"Used own cars +Used combination of own cars and Centre car $Overall, notwithstanding the figures provided by them, the Convent states that the average is in the range 15-25
Conference centre and ancillarv activities
Location/use tvpe Bed canacitv Hall 78 Youth centre 43 Barn <40 Camping site numbers not available Total residential capacity 161 *
* excluding camping site
Car parking
Transport to and from the Centre included coaches and minibuses - but the majority was by car. As the conferences increased so the car parking facilities had to be incmsed. Originally car parking was to the west of the front of the Hall. Later it had to be extended to cover tint one and then the second tennis court. Non residential day conferences, ofien heavily subscribed, sometimes had to be permitted to park on the moat side of the circular path in front of the Hall. Youth Centre transport was often in minibuses or coach with some use of private cars which parked between the youth centre and the garages. During week-end activities this was sometimes overfull.
Sou= Siten of the Assumption. Merrif ields APPENDIX B CHARTERED SURVEYORS
63 Churchgate Street Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP33 1RL Telephone: 01284 700700 Fax- 01284 700117 w.merrlfieldsco.uk
Our ref: GEIBWIP4737 [email protected]
03 December 2007
Mr J Popham 7 Tannery Drive Bury St Edmunds IP33 2SD
Dear Mr Popham
Hengrave Hall
Further to your request, I write to advise that I have now had the opportunity of inspecting Hengrave Hall. I have considered the accommodation on the site and its location, with a view to providing my opinion on the suitability and economic viability of the premises for re- use for commercial uses.
Experience and Qualifications The writer, Gordon Ellis, is a Director of Merrifields Chartered Surveyors and Commercial Property Consultants based in Bury S1 Edmunds. Gordon Ellis is the Director responsible for marketing commercial property and advising on the planning and development of properties as part of a multi-discipline team.
Gordon Ellis has a Bachelor of Science degree in Property Management and is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He has in excess of 19 years' experience In the profession and has been working with Merrifields slnce May 1993.
The Site and its previous use I am familiar with the site and surroundings and have substantial experience In providing advice with regard to the viability and development potential of greenfield and brownfield employment sites, for both commercial redevelopment and refurbishment.
The site lies on the edge of the village of Hengrave and has a frontage to, and takes access from, the A1 101, I understand the site area of the Hall amounts to approximately 50 acres. The buildings relevant to this report are located amongst other buildings used for different purposes including residential use; the buildings are located at the end of a long drive out of sight of the main road. It contains the following accommodation which is relevant to this report:
The Barn A detached modem building converted for use as living space to a low specification that would require a substantial programme of works for it to be used for commercial purposes. The gross internal area is aboul 1,894 sq R
Menifields is a trading name of Menifields ltd Registered In England No. 5401232 Kennedy Block A former stable block converted in association with the previous use with an attached 1950's building previously used as a gymnasium. A substantial programme of works would be required for it to be used for commercial purposes. Gross internal area is about 4,500 sq ft.
Greengage Block A single storey detached building formerly used as classrooms, with laundry, kitchen and workshop. A substantial programme of works would be required for it be used for commercial purposes. Gross internal area is about 2,720 sq ft.
NE Wing (Ground Floor) A 20Ih century addition to the main hall, these two ground floor areas were most recently used as a community dining room and community common room. They are part of the main hall. A substantial programme of works would be required for it be used for commercial purposes. Gross internal area is about 2,000 sq fl.
I understand Hengrave Hall (as a whole) was primarily used as a residential conference centre. The centre was run by a religious order. I have not undertaken a detailed structural inspection of the buildings, but note they are of - \ different ages and construction and not purposefully constructed for the existing use i.e. they appear to have been constructed for differing purposes and converted as required. The buildings appear to be in a structurally sound condition but are suffering from a lack of maintenance and upkeep and are in need of repair and thereafter an ongoing maintenance programme. I believe that the refurbishment that is required, the ongoing maintenance of buildings and equipment, and the costs associated with the operation of the site, make the current use of the building economically obsolete and therefore alternative uses need lo be found for the properties.
Existing Use The business was operated by a religious order on a not for profit basis. With the use not being able to support itself and the exceptionally high costs of maintaining the building, It ceased to be viable.
A residential conference business is a labour intensive activity and, in order lo maintain an appropriate turnover to cover operating costs, a high number of staff would be needed along with part-time employees during the busiest perlods. The minimum wage for employing such employees, including National Insurance contributions and other associated costs, has recently increased significantly. Rather than injecting more money into the use and buildings the previous owners had no alternative but to cease operating and to sell the property. 1 '1 The use was relatively small scale and not able to compete with other operations in the region. One of the main factors in operating the use was the increasing supply cost of maintaining the buildings and services including oil, electricity and water. all of which were core resources for this business. The rapid increase in these costs was also a major factor in reducing the business viability.
Reuse of the site for alternative residential conference use The holding is not large enough to diversify to other residential conference uses and the cost of new build and refurbishment to allow this use would be prohibitive. Such an operation would also be incompatible with the residential amenity interests of adjoining dwellings, and the unsustainable location. Re-use of the Land and Buildings for alternative commercial use I have considered alternative commercial uses for the property and I believe these do not meet the viability criteria necessary to establish an alternative commercial operation on this redundant commercial site, especially If it is to be a mixed site, with residential use.
The cost of redeveloping the existing buildings to provide refurbished business units (and here we are primarily looking at light industrial use that would fall within a Class Bl(c)) would in my opinion be too high to warrant refurbishment when the return on the investment, i.e. through the rental yield, is likely to be low. With more onerous building regulations, construction costs for business type units are likely to be in the region of E70 per sq Pt excluding the cost of services provision to the site, infrastructure costs, demolilion. marketing, professional fees, finance and allowing for rental voids. When considering all these costs and the likely rental values that could potentially be achieved for such business units in this location, (around £250 per sq ft) I consider that any form of speculative commercial development on the site for light industrial use is not viable. It should also be noted that the existing buildings are not suitable for, or in my opinion capable of, reuse for B1 (c) light industrial purposes.
Another alternative to consider is office space. However there is a significant amount of supply available now, especially with many Farmers ~onvertingrural barns to offices and even more when considering planning consents that have not yet been Implemented. There is therefore much competition in the market place for rural office space. This has brought a noticeable decline in rental values for such space; offices in such locations are unlikely to achieve any more than El0 per sq. This rental level is significantly lower than the level needed to render an office development project viable.
Evidence of the weak market interest in business accommodation in rural locations can be seen at the following sites;
"Brickfields Business Park" in Woolpit Phase II of business development is currently being progressed by Mothersole Builders of Bury St Edmunds. Despite acquiring the land at a low rate, the developers are encountering significant problems in letting new buildings on the site, despite being able to construct the units at a competitive cost reflecting their trade as a genera! builder. If this firm did not own the land and could not construct the units for themselves at a faction of the true cost, the site would be even less viable.
'Hall Farm Barns Pakenham" A development of former agricultural barns lo high quality offices in a superb rural setting. We first discussed the availability of this building with the owners in March 2005. The owners have speculatively converled six of the buildings. Following completion of the works in late Spring 2006 only two of the six units have been let, despite offering reduced renlal levels and substantial incentives to ingoing tenants. It should be noted that the owner owns a construction company and therefore was able to convert the units at a low cost.
"Park House, Rushbrooke" A former Estate Club Room that was converted in 1999 to office use. I1 was occupied between 1999 and 2005. Since the summer of 2005 we have been marketing the property on behalf of the owners with a view to finding a new office tenant. We have been unable to find a tenant for the property and it still remains on the market despite low levels of rent and incentives being available. We believe the location is a prohibitive factor. It is acknowledged theie are rural business schemes lhat have succeeded, including Moseleys Farm at Fornham All Saints and Park Farm at Fornham St Genevieve. However these schemes have two distinctive advantages over the subject property; location. undeniably excellent high profile locations directly fronting the highway, and the fact that the conversions took place by farmers who have held the properties for generations and as such they have little or no value attributable to holding the property. If you added an acquisition cost of the buildings to those schemes I do not believe they would be viable.
The strategic employment allocation at Suffolk Business Park in the SI Edmundsbury Local Plan (68 ha) lies approximately 6 miles from the site. This land will provide total flexibility for existing local businesses to expand and to meet the needs of inward investors, and will clearly meet the needs of the market comprehensively.
Other factors to be considered
The layout of the Kennedy Block and the Greengage Block are not appropriate for modem day office use. Rates - Changes in empty rates liability will have a significant Impact on speculative commercial schemes. Repairing liability - It is unlikely tenants would enter into normal full repairing liability and as such a further financial burden falls on the landlord. Public transport and facilities -There are no facilities in the village and there is no public transport so the use of the private motor vehicle for each and every user of the space would be inevitable. Conflict of uses - In urban areas mixed use schemes work well, but in rural areas there is often a conflict. - Covenants relating to alterations - such covenants could curtail an expanding business Parking and rights of access -With no public transport it is inevitable that more cars will park within the environment than maximum parking standards allow
Suitability of the Buildings for Holiday Accommodation The premises are situated in a rural location away from both rural and town facilities.
The buildings are situated on the edge of a picturesque Suffolk village with access to transport routes. albeit vehicular only.
The buildings are situated in a village between the historic town of and Bury St Edmunds and Mildenhall. Whilst neither of the towns are considered tourlst centres. Bury St Edmunds does have a heritage and does attract some tourism, where as Mildenhall does not. \ P The village is a minimum of a one hour drive from the coastal hot spots of East Anglia and within approximately % hour drive from the tourist centre of Cambridge and therefore the village is perceived to be too far from these locations to attract a high volume of tourists.
Viability for reuse of premises for Holiday Accommodation We have had to make a number of assumptions about the space for holiday accommodation and these have included the size of accommodation that can be made available. The current premises can provide some 11,014 sq ft of accommodation. Based on the size and layout of the accommodation available at Hengrave Hall we would suggest that 8 holiday cottages could be made available. My research has suggested that the majority of holiday coltages within the Suffolk area sleep between 2 and 5 people. There is very little accommodation available and indeed research shows there was very little demand for accommodation that accommodated more persons than this.
In the off-season accommodation varies from £250 to £480 per week, whereas in peak season accommodation would range from £400 to £600 per week. The peak seasons are June. July and August with limited high spots at Easter and Christmas. The remaining times of the year are considered to be low season. At a maximum, high season accounts for some 22 weeks of the year where our research has suggested approximately a 65% occupancy rate. During the low season I would expect only a 20% occupancy rate. The average annual income produced by a holiday cottage in the mid East Anglia area, i,e, away from the coastal areas where higher rates are paid, would therefore be approximately E9,315 per annum and therefore would anticipate an annual rent role of about £74,500 per annum.
The conversion of buildings is now generally regarded as being more expensive than the construction of new buildings; therefore, when allowing for build costs of say El00 per sq ft, I would calculate the conversion cost of the buildings at Hengrave Hall to be approximately E1,100,000.When considering this to an average annual income of some £74,500 that is suggested above, it is clear to see that the rent on the investment would not justify the risk of conversion, especially when considering the extra cost that will be incurred including staff, wear and tear, furniture and a "site managern. The cost is simply too high. This also assumes that no value is to be attributable to the value of the existing buildings.
At these levels it is unlikely any finance house would offer enough funding to undertake the scheme on the grounds that it would not be viable to do so.
In summary; whilst the site is located in an attractive part of the Suffolk countryside it is isolated from the main tourist areas within the county which would attract the high volume and high paying tourists. Whilst the site may support a number of holiday lets the scale of the buildings and the costs that would be incurred in their conversion compared with the return that you would expect to achieve makes a proposed use as holiday lets unviable. I therefore do not believe that the premises have any viability for holiday accommodation and therefore other more efficient uses for the reuse of the redundant buildings in the countryside should be considered.
Community and recreational uses would not be income producing and therefore are unviable.
Conclusion I can conclude that there Is no realistic prospect of continued conference operation being viable. The site is also too small and has listed building restrictions to enable an alternative business, of similar type, to become established.
In relation to the potential for an alternative commercial operation lo be established, I consider that the evidence indicates that there would be very low levels of demand for cornmerclal property in Hengrave. The cost of site redevelopment, coupled with the low rental levels outlined in this report, Indicate that speculative commerclal development would be unviable, and not fundable by the banks or other commercial institutions.
It is considered from a commercial perspective that the reuse of the site for residential purposes is likely to be the only realistically viable option to provide an economic return on the capital investment needed to refurbish the site for an alternative use. I trust you will contact me if any furlher clarification would be helpful.
Enc: Old Hall Barns, Pakenham letting details Park House, Rushbrook letting details