PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER:P10/0765

Type of approval sought Conservation Area Consent Ward Castle & Applicant College Location: KUDOS HOUSE, LAND AT CORNER OF PRIORY ROAD & EDNAM ROAD, DUDLEY, , DY1 1HL Proposal CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT FOR DEMOLITION OF KUDOS HOUSE, FORMER COACH HOUSE, SPORTS HALL AND BOUNDARY WALLS Recommendation REFUSE Summary:

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1 The application site is 0.4 hectares in size and encompasses a Locally Listed Historic House (constructed in 1864-5 as Priory Villa but more recently re-named Kudos House) along with its extensive grounds which also contain an associated historic Coach House. These elements with their historic boundary walls all fall within the boundary of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area. The application site extends beyond this incorporating a part of the Priory Road Car Park and a building housing a former gymnasium at the rear of no. 2 Ednam Road. The gymnasium and boundary treatment along Priory Road (wall, railings and posts) are vestiges of the former use of this part of the site as Dudley Girls Grammar School. Priory Villa itself is in a good condition and is currently being used as council offices (electoral services office).

2 In the context of the current application for demolition the application site itself needs to be understood in the context of the historic evolution of Dudley Town Centre and of the contribution that the historic buildings and their historic layout make to local distinctiveness and the ‘sense of place’ that makes Dudley special when compared to other towns in the Black Country and beyond.

140 3 The Conservation Area Character Appraisal carried out in 2004 that underpins the designation of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area and has been formally adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance analysed the whole area of the town in great detail and concluded that its special architectural and historic interest could be defined in relation to a number of identifiable ‘quarters’. These had differing but complementary characteristics representing the incremental growth of the Town over time and they were all considered to be of equivalent importance in combining to create the overall character of the town as an historic place.

4 The ‘Commercial/Retail Quarter’ essentially comprises the medieval core area of Dudley stretching from High Street/Market Place back to Tower Street and King Street. Historically the land beyond this comprised open arable fields that supplied the Town with the exception that those lands west of Tower Street and north of Wolverhampton Street had been granted to Dudley Priory. These were maintained as areas of open pasture and woodland and they reverted back to Lord Dudley at the Dissolution of the Monasteries. This is significant because early in the 19th century when Dudley Council first came into being and effectively took over town governance it was here that building land was made available by Lord Dudley that would allow the start of construction of today’s ‘Municipal/Civic Quarter’.

5 On the ‘island’ of land now bounded by Priory Street, St. James’s, and Ednam Roads and fronting onto Priory Road a new Town Hall was built in the Victorian Gothic Revival style. At a time of great change and social instability fostered by the Industrial Revolution this architectural style consciously referenced medieval church and secular architecture, seeking to invoke echoes of the stability represented by traditional English institutions and attitudes. Fittingly, in the same vein the Town Hall was accompanied by a ‘Baronial Gothic’ Police Headquarters designed so as to mimic the gatehouse of a medieval castle. A further Gothic Revival style building the ‘Dudley Dispensary’ was built adjacent to and north of the Town Hall. As the name implies this was designed to dispense medicines and provide access to medical treatment for the rapidly rising industrial population of Dudley.

141 Whilst the current Council House complex has replaced the Victorian Town Hall and Dispensary the original ‘Old Police Buildings’ still remain on Priory Street and are listed grade II. 6 All of this is highly pertinent in that Priory Villa itself was specifically constructed as part of this early Civic provision as a purpose built dwelling to house the then ‘Surgeon in Charge’ to the Dispensary, Mr John Houghton. He utilised it both as his private residence and for his professional consulting rooms, a dual role that is still clearly evident in the well preserved architectural detail and layout of the building today. The architecture is Italianate emulating design elements, such as the central Cupola lighting a grand central staircase, found in a traditional Tuscan Villa. The building has two formal entrances, a very grand one off Ednam Road leading into the private part of the house with a spacious tiled entrance hall and grand staircase and a Priory Road entrance which is ornate but of a slightly lesser order, being a separate entrance for the use of patients. Overall the architectural composition and consistency of detailing is very good and it is suggested it may be the work of Birmingham architects Bateman and Drury, a notable feature being the linking of doorcase details through to the windows above.

7 Internally the Council have been sensitive in their conversion of the building to offices and although some lightweight partitions have been added the historic plan form survives intact. Most original features have been retained, most interestingly including the arrangement of surgery rooms to the Priory Road frontage, and grander, private rooms to the south-west side. Whilst the surgery rooms do not possess any particular features that could provide a greater understanding of how they were used the private rooms still contain window shutters, cornices, ceiling roses, dado rails and picture rails. Original sash windows survive in most locations. At the service end of the house a high corridor leading towards the original kitchen area still has an array of meat hooks suspended from the ceiling. The wine cellar still contains its original slate lined wine bins and brick stillages for the storage of other goods. 8 Through adopting an Italianate architectural style that clearly references Classical as opposed to Gothic architecture Priory Villa was very evidently designed to be strikingly different to its neighbours. This would be entirely in keeping with the

142 profession of its occupant as representing an architectural expression of scientific rationalism, perceptually linking back to the roots of modern medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome. This is why Priory Villa now still ‘stands out’ as a striking feature in the street scene and there is no other example of a house in this architectural style within the Conservation Area.

9 Designed originally to be a very prestigious stand alone building serving the Dispensary and sharing the same grounds, Priory Villa became even more of an iconic structure when it became part of the wider Priory Fields development. This came about in the 1870’s as Lord Dudley released more building land this time laid out as a series of extremely spacious building plots serviced by a new network of roads, including for the first time Ednam Road. The Dudley Herald of 1876 hailed this venture as being akin to the creation of a new ‘West End’ for Dudley to rival that in London. Within this new layout Priory Villa gained a prominent corner location dominating the crossroads of Ednam and Priory Roads as it still does today. New grounds were then also laid out with a walled boundary running alongside Ednam Road and with a new Coach House being constructed and accessed from it. All of these features remain today including some minor changes to the house, such as the addition of a bay window to overlook the new gardens.

10 The subsequent history of Priory Villa, almost up to the present, serves to emphasise the buildings significance being important not only in architectural terms but in being a physical reminder of how municipal governance and public health services evolved in Dudley at the height of the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Through its’ historical associations with notable local people over a long period the building also serves to illuminate the social history of Dudley.

11 John Hyde Houghton continued in his role with the Dispensary until his death in 1879 by which time he was also Honorary Surgeon of the new Guest Hospital that had been erected in 1871. He had been an important local man, married to the daughter of the Vicar of St. Thomas’s Church and a grave memorial to him, his wife and son can be seen in ‘Top Church’ today. His son-in-law Mr Mathew Arden Messiter, also a consultant surgeon, then took over both at the Dispensary and the

143 Guest Hospital. Whilst residing at Priory Villa he also became a prominent Borough Councillor. He was in turn succeeded by his son Dr Cyril Casson Messiter who took over the title of Honorary Surgeon in 1918 and retired in 1943 by which time a new ward ‘The Messiter Ward’ had been built at the Guest and dedicated to his father. As a 1974 History of the Guest Hospital noted this was, ‘A truly remarkable record of family service- extending to an unbroken period of over seventy years’.

12 The final male Messiter to reside at Priory Villa, Ian, was not a medical man but he instead found national fame as a BBC producer creating the now world famous radio 4 panel game ‘Just a Minute’. It was in the 1960’s, after Ian’s mothers death, that Priory Villa was purchased by Dudley Council.

13 As regards the wider surroundings of the application site, the building plots offered for sale in Priory Fields were aimed at the rising business and professional classes of Dudley, from whose ranks Council members and officers were increasingly being drawn. As a result what has now been recognised as the ‘Residential Quarter’ of the Conservation Area gradually grew up around Priory Villa, being characterised by large regularly spaced high status Victorian and Edwardian residences in extensive well vegetated grounds set alongside tree-lined roads. In architectural style these were almost exclusively of the Gothic Revival or Arts and Crafts tradition often referencing Tudor and Jacobean influences, leaving Priory Villa to continue to stand out in its Classical architectural expression.

Sitting diagonally opposite the application site is Coronation Gardens a Locally Listed formal open space laid out in the 1930’s to complement and provide a frontage setting for the then new Council House and other Civic Buildings. These are all listed Grade II or II*. The physical, visual and symbolic relationship between and the Civic Buildings including the Council Chamber was an important factor in the overall design and represents an interrelationship which remains highly significant today. The Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I Listed Building.

144 PROPOSAL

14 Conservation Area Consent is sought for the total demolition of Priory Villa and its Coach House and historic boundary walls, along with a modern gymnasium building.

15 A concurrent planning application for proposed new development on the site (P10/0764) is also due to be considered by Development Control Committee.

HISTORY

16 The following planning history is relevant – APPLICATION PROPOSAL DECISION DATE No. DY/52/305 Conversion of existing house Approved 18/10/52 to 2 no. houses DY/61/46 Erection of school Approved 23/01/61 gymnasium CC/79/525 Change of use to office Approved 21/05/79 80/51892 Office development (outline) Approved 17/11/80 83/51882 Renewal of 80/51892 Approved 21/11/83 86/51730 Renewal of 80/51892 Approved 22/01/87 90/50217 Office development (Outline) Approved 21/03/91 93/51811 Office building (Outline) Approved 13/01/94 93/51869 Construction of car park Approved 13/01/94 95/51563 Use of land as temporary Approved 14/12/95 long stay car park 96/51609 Renewal of 93/51869 Approved 30/12/96 96/51615 Renewal of 93/51811 Approved 19/12/96 P06/2028 Installation of disabled Approved 8/12/2006 access ramp and new entrance

145 P10/0764 Demolition of Kudos House, undetermined former coach house, sports hall and boundary treatment and erection of new 3 storey College Building.

17 A report on the Planning application (P10/0764) is found elsewhere on this agenda.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

18 The applicants undertook public consultation prior to the submission of the planning application. This included presentations to the Central Dudley area Committee (on 9th March, 2010) and the Dudley Town Centre Partnership (on 23rd March 2010), along with a public exhibition of the proposals (between 24th and 30th April, 2010).

19 Within their Planning Statement, the applicants have confirmed that, with regard to this proposal, most comments received related to Kudos House, with some suggesting that it should be demolished, whilst others suggesting it should be retained.

20 Following public notification of the application for demolition, a total of 12 no. representations have been received, including one from Netherton Heritage and Conservation and none are supportive of the demolition proposals. They also include 2 no. petitions with a total of 320 signatories who state their opposition to the demolition proposed.

21 The main theme of the objections is the proposed loss of Kudos House, and to a lesser extent, the design of the proposed building. In more detail: * With the loss of Kudos House, the proposal does not respect Dudley’s heritage and threatens to take away another of Dudley’s few remaining prestigious and useful buildings

146 * so many wonderful buildings have been lost – the demolition of Kudos House would deprive future generations of yet another heritage structure – there is little to encourage visitors to the town centre

* Kudos House has genuine aesthetic qualities because of its unusual Italianate design and prominent location – the building also retains a lot of its original internal features - a considerable amount of money has been spent on making Kudos House an accessible building whilst not leading to the loss of its period features

* Kudos House is a prominent building and forms a welcoming entrance to the historic town – it imparts a sense of place and its scale and size are harmonious with other buildings in the Conservation Area - the demolition of the building conflicts with the green and sustainable agenda.

* The proposed building looks prison-like – its scale and height are unsuitable and the dominant and immense presence appears overbearing – it will change the feel of leafy Ednam Road – it will destroy the local character and distinctiveness – it will cause a negative impact on Coronation Gardens

OTHER CONSULTATION

22 English Heritage – recommends that the planning permission and conservation area consent applications be refused – - the proposed development will have a marked impact on the character and appearance of the Dudley Town Conservation Area, in particular as the development would involve the demolition of Kudos House. - Kudos House is a substantial, well detailed and well preserved house of the 1860s built to enjoy its corner position in which it remains a pivotal feature particularly as seen from Coronation Gardens. In age and architectural style, Kudos House also forms part of a sequence that is continued by other houses in Ednam Road and within the conservation area.

147 - The building represents sound historic fabric and there is little merit in the argument that the building is unsuited for college use – there are plenty of examples of buildings of this age being converted to college and university use. - In terms of the design of the proposed replacement building, there are no special qualities or special reference to local character that would outweigh the loss of Kudos House. - the public benefits of this proposal are acknowledged, but these benefits can be achieved by the retention and reuse of Kudos House. - as a result of the loss of Kudos House, the proposal does not make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment – it fails the test set out in PPS5 for new development affecting historic assets.

23 Ancient Monuments Society – object - the loss of Kudos House is serious – it is a very polished design of 1864, is occupied and apparently sound. The proposed development appears to owe nothing to the particular character of Dudley.

24 The Victorian Society – object – the loss of Kudos House, along with the coach house and boundary walls will have a negative impact on the conservation area.

25 Save Britain’s Heritage – object - this is a highly sensitive site featuring a key historic building in the heart of the conservation area – it is not agreed that the domestic scale of the building makes it incompatible with modern educational needs – there is concern about the poor quality of the replacement building which will cause substantial harm to the conservation area - it is obvious from its scale and materials that this building will undermine the distinct character of the area.

26 Council for British Archaeology- object- we still do not feel that a case has been made for the loss of a locally listed mid 19th century house which appears to be in good condition, and associated structures. We ask that further thought is given to incorporating the structures within the design of the new development or the new development is designed to avoid the historic structures.

148 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

27 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (adopted 2005) S1 – Social Inclusion S2 – Creating a more sustainable borough; S4 – Heritage Assets; S5 – Local Distinctiveness; DD1 – Urban Design; DD4 – Development in residential areas; DTC1 – (Dudley Town Centre) Thoroughfares and Public Spaces; DTC2 – (Dudley Town Centre) Street Blocks; HE1 – Local character and distinctiveness; HE4 – Conservation Areas; HE5 – Buildings of Local Historic Importance; HE6 – Listed Buildings; HE9 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

28 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Historic Environment; Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (Dec. 2005); Dudley Town Centre Area Development Framework (ADF) (Dec. 2005)

29 Planning Policy Statements (PPS) PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb. 2005); PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (Dec. 2009); PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010);

30 Sub Regional Planning Black Country Joint Core Strategy (recently the subject of an Examination in Public- Inspectors report due imminently).

149 31 Other Council Policy Council Plan 2013 (2010);

ASSESSMENT

32 Key Issues • Policy implications of total loss of designated heritage assets and unsustainable development; • The degree of significance of Priory Villa, its grounds and ancillary structures in the context of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area; • Strength of the applicants justification for demolition of heritage assets on the basis of overriding public benefit; • Potential for delivering the desired public benefit through alternative site layout and design; • Overall impact of demolition and of the proposed new development upon the character and appearance of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area and the setting of statutorily and locally listed buildings and areas.

National Policy for Sustainable Development and Economic Growth 33 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s overarching objectives for the planning system including (paragraph 1): ‘to deliver homes, jobs and better opportunities for all, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment………’. PPS 1 also sets out a number of Key Principles for sustainable development including that: ‘Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design….Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted’. Equally unacceptable (paragraph 35) is ‘Design which is inappropriate in its context’. A key objective, therefore, (paragraph 36) is to ensure that developments ‘respond to their local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness’. Paragraph 19 of PPS 1 also states that:

150 ‘Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued’. 34 The applicant has not demonstrated alternative options or different design that would also allow the retention of Priory Villa in an appropriate setting are not feasible and English heritage found little merit in the argument that the building is unsuited to college use.

Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4- Planning for sustainable economic growth) 35 In broad planning policy terms, there is an overarching Government objective to promote sustainable economic growth. To help achieve this Government also has a series of objectives for planning and (inter alia) wants: - the historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of centres to be conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced to provide a sense of place and a focus for the community and for civic activity…. It is not explicitly recognised in PPS 4 that educational provision constitutes development that is significant in terms of regeneration although in local terms this may seem apparent. However, in the context of PPS 4, clearly the securing of educational provision at the direct expense of Heritage Assets of acknowledged importance that PPS 4 also actively encourages the re-use of (Policy EC2.1) cannot be viewed as being ‘sustainable economic growth’ as required by Government Policy, particularly as a revised scheme could deliver the same public benefit sustainably through the retention of Heritage Assets, as English Heritage have also pointed out. Historic Environment Policy Framework Statutory Considerations

36 As components of a designated Conservation Area Priory Villa and all of the ancillary structures within its grounds are protected from demolition by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 72 of the Act states that in the general exercise of their duties and in decision making planning authorities must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing

151 the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Section 74 (3) of the Act requires that where Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of components of a conservation area those components shall be treated for the purposes of decision making as though they were statutorily listed in their own right (ie ‘designated’). Planning authorities must, therefore, also pay special regard to the desirability of preserving such buildings or their settings.

37 Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) Planning for the Historic Environment sets out the Government’s detailed objectives for the historic environment and (inter alia) states that: ‘The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations’. To achieve this, the Government’s objectives for planning for the historic environment are: Firstly: to deliver sustainable development by ensuring that policies and decisions concerning the historic environment: –– recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource –– take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation; and –– recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term. Secondly: to conserve ’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance by ensuring that: –– decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance, –– wherever possible, heritage assets are put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation –– the positive contribution of such heritage assets to local character and sense of place is recognised and valued; 38 Within this context Policy HE7 of PPS 5 sets out the policy principles that local planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications. Firstly, they should assess and gain a proper understanding of the significance of the Heritage Asset. This should then be taken into account including a consideration of

152 the value of the asset to future generations. This understanding should then be used by the LPA to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage assets conservation and any aspect of the proposals. 39 In this respect a fuller understanding of the significance of Priory Villa was gained after the original submission of the Conservation Area Consent and Planning applications through the applicants commissioning (at the request of the Planning Authority) a specialist Historic Environment Assessment from Prospect Archaeology. The findings of the Assessment partly form the basis of the description of Priory Villa in the first section of this report and it is notable that the applicants own Assessment concluded that the Council have appropriately designated the building as being of local interest through including it on the Local List. This confirms that Priory Villa has a high degree of significance and the Local Listing serves to reinforce the existing PPS 5 presumption in favour of the buildings retention. Clearly, the impact of the current proposal (ie demolition) involves a total loss of that significance.

40 In taking decisions PPS 5 generally advises that local planning authorities should take into account: – the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and of utilising their positive role in place-shaping; and – the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets and the historic environment generally can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality………

41 PPS 5 also sets out the Government’s policy for the management of development that would affect a designated heritage asset, including a Conservation Area and those components within the area that make a positive contribution to its character and appearance, such as Priory Villa. Policy HE9.1 of PPS5 states ‘…. There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be…… loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification’ (DCLG, 2010, 8).

153 Sub-regional Planning Policy- Black Country Core Strategy 41 Policy ENV.2. states that: ‘All development should aim to protect and promote the special qualities, historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country in order to help maintain its cultural identity and strong sense of place. Development will be required to preserve and, where appropriate enhance, enhance local character and those aspects of the historic environment together with their settings which are recognised as being of special historic, archaeological, architectural, landscape or townscape quality’. Adopted Dudley Unitary Development Plan.

42 In terms of UDP Policy: Policy HE1 states that proposals which would result in the loss of physical features that strongly contribute to the local character and distinctiveness of the Borough’s townscape will be resisted; Policy HE4 states that proposals for the demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas and proposals which could prejudice views into or out of Conservation Areas will be resisted. Any new development or alterations should respect the historical or vernacular building character, proportion, massing and relationship between buildings and the spaces between them and with their setting; Policy HE5 states that the Council will resist development which will involve the demolition of buildings or structures on the Local List and development that would have a detrimental impact on the setting or context of buildings or structures on the Local List; Policy HE 6 states that the Council will resist development that would be detrimental to the setting of statutorily listed buildings; Policy HE9 states that there will be presumption against any development, which does not ensure that Scheduled Ancient Monuments remain intact and that their setting is not predjudiced.

43 The Historic Environment SPD has an overarching aim of protecting and conserving the locally distinctive characteristics of the Borough’s existing townscapes and landscapes whilst also ensuring that new development respects and/or enhances the existing character of distinctive localities. These localities are defined further within the Dudley Town Conservation Area Appraisal and include the ‘Residential Quarter’.

154 The degree of significance of Priory Villa, its grounds and ancillary structures in the context of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area.

44 After very extensive public consultation on a Conservation Character Appraisal Dudley Town Centre was formally designated in 2004 as an Area of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. The qualities and attributes of the area were recognised as being capable of forming the basis for a residential led regenerative renaissance of a town centre that was felt to have the potential to be the ‘Ludlow of the Black Country’.

45 The findings of the Character Appraisal and the importance of the Residential Quarter, its buildings and spaces to the character of the town centre are as described in the site and surroundings section of this report. That section also includes an explanation of the unique contribution both the quarter in general and Priory Villa in particular make to an understanding and appreciation of the history and heritage of Dudley.

46 Priory Villa represents a special component within the wider conservation area designation, as had already been recognised by the Council in singling out the building for inclusion on the Local List 14 years ago (in 1996). Contrary to the applicants assertions Kudos House is also clearly highlighted in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal as a Locally Listed Building both on plan and photographically.

47 The Character Appraisal was supported in 2006 by a further document detailing a Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) which was also widely consulted upon and endorsed by Development Control Committee. It set out a ten year strategy designed to ensure the proactive application of conservation policy in the area to support the retention and refurbishment of historic buildings. This was to enable ‘regeneration through conservation’ to take place as a crucial part of the delivery mechanism for the ADF.

155 48 The CAMP was formally adopted by the Council’s Cabinet in November 2006 and they resolved to:

• Adopt the Conservation Area Management Plan and support its proactive implementation throughout the lifetime of the THI and for at least ten years;

• Endorse the Conservation Area Management Plan as a companion document to the previous Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPG, to afford it material consideration status.

49 As such, the CAMP was submitted as ‘A clear illustration of the Councils commitment to our funding partners for the future implementation of the THI’ in support of the Council’s bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for a Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) conservation grants scheme for the Town Centre. That successful bid led the HLF to allocate 1.95 million pounds towards a scheme that in total has the potential to attract up to 8 million pounds worth of investment in the repair and re-use of historic buildings in support of the residential led regeneration of the town centre. The HLF grant is conditional upon the Council fully implementing the CAMP over the whole lifetime of the THI.

50 Currently, the Council are also in negotiation with English Heritage with a view to bidding for further funding support for the THI through a ‘Partnership Scheme in a Conservation Area’. EH have stated that, as the HLF already require, they will equally expect to see proactive conservation policies being pursued and to be assured that the CAMP is being fully implemented before any grant offer is made.

51 Most directly pertinent to the consideration of the current application is one principal aim of the CAMP which is to: ‘Illustrate the local planning authority’s commitment to have regard to government policy for Conservation Area management as detailed in PPG 15 paragraphs 4.1 to 4.40’ (NB this directly translates today to PPS 5 and Policy HE9 and the presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets such as Priory Villa).

156 English Heritage’s response states that in their view Kudos House undoubtedly contributes positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is a pivotal feature. 52 In further defining that commitment the CAMP also contains a plan highlighting those buildings including Priory Villa considered to: ‘….make a positive contribution to the special interest of the area, which the Council should have special regard to in seeking their retention’. Strength of the applicants justification for the demolition of heritage assets on the basis that they lack significance and that there is an overriding public benefit in delivering the scheme for redevelopment as proposed.

53 The applicants state that the public benefits of the proposal (in terms of providing an enhanced educational resource in the town centre) outweigh the loss of Priory Villa and other Heritage Assets and the concomitant harm to the designated conservation area considering that they all lack significance. There can be little doubt that the vision of bringing together all of the educational activities of Dudley College into Dudley Town Centre on the basis of a linked series of facilities on a campus model would if realised represent a considerable potential public benefit on many levels. The central question at issue is whether the current planning proposal for the site of Priory Villa represents the only reasonable and practicable method of realising that vision or whether there exist other less damaging alternatives that should be developed instead.

54 In the context of this site being within a designated conservation area and containing buildings and structures that make a positive contribution to its’ character and appearance this falls to be considered in relation to Policy HE9 of PPS 5 having in mind also the Council’s statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing such Heritage Assets.

55 Following on from the presumption in favour of the conservation of designated Heritage assets in PPS 5 Policy HE9.1 (paragraph 40 above) Policy HE 9.2 states that applications that will cause substantial harm to or total loss of significance should be refused unless several key tests can be met. Most of the

157 tests relate to whether the Heritage Asset could reasonably be put to a beneficial use or if it is actually simply not possible to retain it because it cannot be used or adapted and/or it prevents any reasonable use of the site as a whole. Priory Villa is in a beneficial use as offices and in good condition and according to English Heritage apart from a few maintenance issues represents sound historic fabric. They further state there are plenty of examples of buildings of this age and type being converted to college use.

56 Therefore, the only applicable test in this instance requires the applicant to demonstrate that: ‘the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss…..’ As is also required by PPS 1 the English Heritage Planning Practice Guidance relating to PPS 5 further states in paragraph 91 that: ‘For the loss to be necessary there will be no other reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, for example through different design or development of an appropriate alternative site’.

57 Also pertinent in relation to the applicants contention that Priory Villa is incapable of being used for any purpose by Dudley College is paragraph 94 of the Guidance that stresses that: ‘Given the irreversibility of any such decision, the demolition or destruction of a designated heritage asset on these grounds is very much a last resort after every option to secure a viable future for the asset has been exhausted. The fact that particular applicants or their advisers cannot conceive of a viable use does not mean that there is no such use’.

58 In seeking to justify the complete removal of heritage assets in this section of the Conservation Area the applicants have made various representations that seek to cast doubt upon the significance and degree of importance of the conservation area itself in this location and that of Priory Villa and other ancillary historic structures that would be demolished as part of their redevelopment proposals. (It should be noted that these opinions were put forward before the applicants had access to the results of the Historic Environment Assessment carried out on their behalf by Prospect Archaeology which clearly highlights the considerable significance and

158 importance of the historic buildings on the site). These assertions are nevertheless listed and commented upon in turn below viz: • Alternative locations for the proposal in the town centre have been assessed, but rejected, primarily on the distance they would be away from The Broadway site (campus hub containing the college’s administrative functions);

Comment: It can be accepted that other locations may not be as convenient given the intention to consolidate College functions into the core area of the town centre. • In relation to this location this part of the conservation area, whilst important is of lesser significance than other parts;

Comment: As is demonstrated by the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and within various sections of this report the ‘Residential Quarter’ has equivalent special status to the other Quarters that make up the overall designation. • The conservation area appraisal contains no specific reference to Kudos House – e.g. it is not identified as a landmark building or point of reference;

Comment: As above and note also specific reference to Kudos House in the companion CAMP document that actually highlights it for retention (paragraph 52 of this report). • Internally Kudos House retains few original features and has been modernised to provide office accommodation;

Comment: The building retains its original plan form and the majority of its original features internally and the modernisation for office use has been sensitively implemented and could readily be reversed should this be required. The applicants own Historic Environment Assessment by Prospect Archaeology demonstrates all of this in some detail. • The Council granted permission for the demolition of Kudos House in the 1980s – such history provides evidence that Kudos House is not a building meriting statutory listing;

159 Comment: Decisions taken in the 1980’s before conservation area designation took place are not material today as the statutory and policy context for decision making has radically changed since then, with the introduction of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, PPG 15 and more recently PPS 5. Whether Priory Villa/Kudos House merits is not presently at issue. English Heritage clearly stated that as a heritage asset it is of significance. As the Local List UDP Policy points out ‘ Many buildings in the Borough which currently do not meet national criteria for statutory listing are nevertheless of significant local historical importance and worthy of protection and conservation in their own right’. Hence the Council’s policy commitment to resist the demolition of such buildings that is strengthened further by Conservation Area legislation and the requirement for the Local Planning Authority to in any case treat the building as though it were on the statutory list for the purposes of decision making. • The boundary walls are a characteristic feature along the north western part of Ednam Road, but have been removed in other areas and are not a characteristic feature in other parts of the conservation area;

Comment: The characteristic repetitive and locally distinctive plot pattern of large houses in substantial grounds enclosed by historic boundary walls bordering tree lined streets holds true throughout the Residential Quarter and they are an important component in the areas special interest. This will not necessarily be a characteristic feature in other parts of the conservation area since these areas have a different character, if some walls have been removed it is regrettable. • The former coach house was until recently covered in ivy – the planning history recalls that it was approved for demolition and described as a derelict brick garage;

Comment: This may be true but the applicants own Historic Environment Assessment by Prospect Archaeology now makes it clear that it is in fact a purpose built Coach House, no doubt used by the Messiter Family of consultant surgeons to provide transport to and from the Guest Hospital and more generally. As such, whilst it may

160 arguably not be of equivalent importance to Priory Villa itself the Coach House deserves to be considered on its own merits as a Heritage asset of noted significance. • The demolition of the former girls’ school and the development of a 4 storey office block on the opposite side of Ednam road (no. 4 Ednam Road) have significantly changed the heritage context and setting of Kudos House;

Comment: The characteristic repetitive and locally distinctive plot pattern of large houses in substantial grounds enclosed by historic boundary walls bordering tree lined streets laid out on behalf of Lord Dudley in the 1870’s still defines the north side of Ednam Road. The offices of 4, Ednam Road opposite are completely in character with the large civic buildings that now occupy the islanded ‘Civic Quarter’. They are not therefore detrimental to the setting of Kudos House/Priory Villa but simply exhibit a different character and could be said to actually positively consolidate the difference between the two Quarters thereby highlighting the special qualities of both. The loss of the Dudley Girls Grammar School is regrettable but in fact the building never formed part of the Residential Quarter but lay beyond it and was constructed at a later date. That said, a redesigned College proposal perhaps has the potential to re- establish a generally similar juxtaposition of domestic and institutional buildings. • The potential incorporation of Kudos House into a scheme has been assessed but rejected – the building not being readily adaptable to meet modern educational needs due to internal space arrangements, room sizes and ceiling heights – the foundations of the building are also considered inadequate for the design loadings of the college;

Comment: Priory Villa has already demonstrated its adaptability and ability to accommodate changes in use having been successfully converted for general office use by the Council, including incorporating a range of ICT provision and being adapted so as to be made more accessible. The future use of Priory Villa needs to be considered as part of a broader consideration as to how the application site could potentially be redesigned to provide

161 the required facilities for the College in a sensitive manner whilst achieving the same public benefit as the current proposal. As English Heritage point out this has been achieved elsewhere and examples include, educational uses as in the case of Worcester University in their re-use of buildings from the old Royal Infirmary in their new campus and Leicester University. • There are complex VAT issues relating to the re-use of the building which would have significant financial implications for the project – (explained in a letter on VAT from the Colleges financial adviser which forms part of the application).

Comment: The letter from the Colleges VAT Adviser makes it clear that the scheme could potentially become liable to VAT charges only if any element of new build were to be physically attached to Kudos House itself. This is not the case if Kudos House in retained in stand alone beneficial use. 60 The above assertions have also been clearly rebutted in several sections of this report and it is considered that they can carry very little weight in decision making when set in the context of the Council’s statutory duties to pay special regard to the preservation of conservation areas and the historic buildings within them. 61 One further assertion does, however, require some detailed consideration in that the applicant states that: • The position of Kudos House would make it impossible to create a distinctive entrance to a new college facility.

Comment: English Heritage contend that Kudos House could be retained with new build elsewhere on site so retaining Priory Villa and the character of the Conservation Area whilst still meeting their design aspirations for new College buildings. The college’s aspirations are understood to be the creation of cutting edge modern buildings that connect visually with other campus sites in the Town Centre and have a clear sense of entrance to enable students to orientate themselves. There are a wide variety of ways in which those aspirations could be met that do not involve a ‘cleared site solution’ and would allow new College buildings to respect their historic context and integrate within the existing town centre rather than seek to completely dominate the

162 historic townscape and subsume its character, as with the current proposal. The following section of the report explores this further.

Potential for delivering the desired public benefit through alternative site layout and design. 62 As noted above in the Policy section of this report paragraph 19 of PPS 1 states that: ‘Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued’. 63 Clearly, the applicant has not demonstrated that alternative options or different designs that would also allow the retention of Priory Villa in an appropriate setting are not feasible. 64 Applying basic principles of good design to the site, taking into account its’ conservation area status and the presence of highly significant historic assets such as Priory Villa plus the Colleges previously suggested layouts, it seems apparent that in broad principle: * A new College building of suitable scale and massing could be accommodated at the rear of the site, offset away from Priory Villa slightly so as not to be over dominant. * Sitting ‘above and beyond’ Priory Villa the new College building could with sensitive design also incorporate variations in height so as to architecturally signal its’ presence over a wide area. * Equally, the new buildings principal frontage would be clearly visible across Coronation Gardens but being set back along the line of the rear boundary of the grounds of Priory Villa would preserve the historic plot ratio that forms the character of the ‘Residential Quarter’. The new structure would then ‘read’ as a high quality built component set alongside the Conservation Area rather than being imposed directly upon it. * In terms of students entering the site it would in principle be possible in this scenario to make the Ednam Road boundary to Priory Villa more permeable and allow access through it to be made available for College students. A new entrance here would allow access to the new building over the existing pedestrian crossing on Ednam Road- or this could be relocated. The historic street scene would essentially be maintained and

163 the future of the Coach House could be discussed in relation to the PPS 5 philosophy of accommodating ‘Intelligently managed change’. * In the same context a wide variety of architectural devices could be used to emphasise the new buildings entrance and lead students logically towards it. The grounds of Priory Villa would then become a shared green setting for both the new and old buildings on the site providing open space on the frontage of the new education block and allowing students to congregate away from busy road frontages. Overall impact of demolition of heritage assets and of the proposed new development upon the character and appearance of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area including the setting of statutorily and locally listed buildings and areas.

65 Clearly the College proposal involves the complete removal of Heritage Assets currently on the application site that are of acknowledged importance and highly significant to the history of Dudley and to the special architectural and historic interest, character and appearance of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area. That is, Priory Villa, its’ Coach House and the historic boundary walls to its extensive grounds that together comprise the historic street scene along Ednam and Priory Roads. Insufficient justification has been put forward in relation to this approach and the applicants have therefore be unable to satisfy the test in PPS 5 that requires them to demonstrate there is no other way other than demolition to deliver equivalent public benefit.

66 The proposed new building has evidently been designed without sufficient due regard to the context of the site, the unique character of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area, the importance of the Towns Heritage Assets or local distinctiveness. As the Ancient Monuments Society commented ‘it appears to owe nothing to the particular character of Dudley’.

67 The design rationale for the proposed building appears to be a desire to create a very large architectural statement on an Institutional scale by means of a prominent entrance feature set back from the corner of Ednam and Priory Roads, at the existing location of Priory Villa. English Heritage consider that this desire merely serves to

164 weaken what is currently a strong corner presence at a key entrance to the conservation area, provided in the architecturally striking form of Priory Villa. 68 This design approach is therefore considered to be inappropriate at this location within the Residential Quarter, furthermore it does not provide a transition between the Civic and Residential Quarters claimed by the applicants. Suggest instead it serves to create a dividing line along the length of Ednam Road between on the one side large scale Civic structures occupying very large built footprints and on the other large historic houses set in extensive well vegetated open grounds with historic boundaries.

69 The current proposal would cut across that significant distinction which characterises the conservation area, fundamentally altering the relationship between the Civic complex and its’ wider setting as is formed by the historically ancillary Residential Quarter, with which the Civic core has always had a symbiotic relationship.

70 The proposed building would dwarf historic properties elsewhere in the Residential Quarter and blurring the currently clear distinction between this area and the Civic Quarter.

71 Indeed introducing a large architecturally undistinguished built component in this location will actively detract from and compete with the discrete high quality architecture of the Civic Buildings that sit opposite, compromising their setting. The setting of Coronation Gardens whose formal layout and design was totally related to the provision of a suitable frontage setting for the Council House complex will equally be compromised.

72 When viewed from Dudley Castle the proposed College building will also attain undue prominence and have a similarly skewing effect in relation to compromising the principal view from here that is currently focussed directly towards the Civic complex over the Coronation Gardens frontage. The boundaries of the Civic Quarter are firmly visually set by the clear distinction along the line of Ednam Road between it and the Residential Quarter and the College building would stand out as a large alien component that would obscure and confuse that clear distinction, including in

165 views from Dudley Castle, so adversely affecting the setting of the scheduled ancient monument also. English Heritage considers the proposed building to have no special quality or specific reference to local character so as to justify the loss of the heritage asset.

CONCLUSION

73 Policy HE9.1 of PPS5 states ‘…. There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be…… loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification’ (DCLG, 2010, 8). Also, to be considered is that: ‘For the loss to be necessary there will be no other reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, for example through different design or development of an appropriate alternative site’.

74 It is considered, and English Heritage (EH) have also made clear (as a statutory consultee on the planning application) that they are strongly urging the Council to refuse this application, that no such justification or at best a very weak justification has been made by the applicants in respect of this proposal. It is therefore considered that it fails the test set out in PPS 5 for new development affecting historic assets.

75 As EH and a range of other consultees also point out there is by contrast every reason to believe that the scheme could be redesigned to achieve the same public benefit in such a way that would allow for the retention of Priory Villa in an appropriate setting and preserve the essential character of the Dudlley Town Centre Conservation Area.

76 Thus, whilst in principle, the overall vision behind the proposal could be supported and would help deliver considerable public benefit the manner in which the proposed scheme seeks to realise that vision is wholly inappropriate. It cannot

166 reasonably be considered that the current planning proposal for the site of Priory Villa represents the only reasonable and practicable method of realising that vision but instead it is clear that there exist other less damaging alternatives that should be developed instead.

77 On this basis and on the basis that the current scheme if implemented would give rise to a wide range of unacceptable, significant and negative impacts on the qualities and character of the local environment contrary to national, sub- regional and local planning policy it is considered that this application should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

78 It is recommended that the proposed development be refused for the following reasons.

Conditions and/or reasons:

1. The proposal involves the demolition of Priory Villa/Kudos House, which is a designated building on the Council’s Local List and within the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area. It also involves the loss of the whole of the boundary wall along the Ednam Road frontage and an associated historic Coach House, also within this conservation area. These structures are considered significant heritage assets and contribute to the character of the conservation area, particularly given their siting at the gateway to, and within the defined residential quarter of, this area. There are no demonstrable reasons, which can be sufficiently substantiated, so as to justify the loss of these assets. As a result of this, the proposal unduly and unnecessarily adversely impacts on heritage assets and on the character of the conservation area, causing irrevocable harm to that character and the qualities inherent in the local environment in general. It is consequently contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5); Policy ENV2 of the Black Couintry Core Strategy and the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal (DTCCACA), and saved

167 policies HE1, HE4 and HE5 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. The design and form of the proposed building, with particular regard to its Institutional massing, scale and emphasis, is considered inappropriate and incongruous to the distinctiveness and character of the local environment compromising the currently clear distinction between the Residential and Civic Quarters of the Conservation Area. This is with particular reference to the proposed building’s disruption of the areas historic plot patterns, excessive scale and massing onto the Ednam Road frontage and in relation to adjacent historic buildings, the lack of variety in the design of the elevation on the frontage, and that the proposal represents a weakening of the otherwise strong corners at the junction of Priory Road and Ednam Road. It would particularly, adversely impact on the character of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area, neither safeguarding nor enhancing the defined character of this area nor preserving the setting of statutorily and locally listed buildings and areas in the vicinity and the scheduled monument of Dudley Castle but having an unacceptably adverse impact on their settings. It consequently fails to justify the removal of a heritage asset and is therefore contrary to saved UDP Policies DD1 and HE4, HE5, HE6, HE9 and the provisions of PPS5 and the DTCCAA.

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177