Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment concerning a proposed draft conservation area boundary and supporting conservation area proposal.

Members were informed that the proposal area had been drawn up following detailed characterisation work that had taken place as part of the evidence base underpinning the emerging Local Plan and via a specific request from representatives of the Bevis Marks Synagogue.

Members were shown a map of the proposed area which was bound broadly by Bevis Marks, Dukes Place and St Botolph’s in the North, Bury Street and Creechurch Lane in the West and Leadenhall and Aldgate High Street in the east.

The Officer stated that the proposed area differed in spatial scope from that proposed by the Synagogue’s representatives for the reasons set out in the conservation area proposal report which was appended to the Officer report. Members were shown photographs of the area. The Officer stated that the area comprised a diverse townscape of buildings from the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries. There were 19^th century warehouses which comprised the core of the conservation area, some of which had been converted to residential with commercial properties at ground floor and some of which were Grade 2 listed. There were three principle places of worship in the area including the Bevis Mark’s Synagogue, the Guild Church of St Katharine Cree, and St Botolph’s Church, all of which were listed Grade 2.

It was proposed that public consultation be carried out on the proposals for a new ‘Creechurch Conservation Area’ over late Summer and early Autumn 2023, with the aim of reporting the results back to the Committee before the end of the calendar year. The consultation was proposed to be held for eight weeks and would be carried out in accordance with Historic England guidance and the City Corporation’s Statement of Community Involvement (2023).

Katherine McCullough who headed up Merchant Land which had owned 33 Creechurch Lane since 1994, addressed the Committee. She stated they were keen to find a future, which would include redevelopment, for the outdated commercial building. Ms McCollough stated that as local landlords and freeholders who were considering development options for their site, they were supportive in principle of the proposals to establish the new Creechurch Conservation Area.  She stated that the planning history at their own site had been challenging and complex and therefore they saw this as an opportunity to provide well-considered guidance for decision makers, officers, land-owners and local stakeholders.

Ms McCollough further stated that the assessments undertaken by both Officers and representatives of Bevis Marks Synagogue highlighted the rich history and modern cultural life. She commented that there was much to be celebrated and the new conservation area offered an opportunity to protect heritage assets and identify enhancements to the overall proposed conservation area through redevelopment.

Ms McCollough added that the conservation area would clarify the context and expectations surrounding sensitive redevelopment rather than inhibit buildings such as theirs from evolving. This would help to establish a balance that worked as well as possible for all. She stated that in due course, it was planned to bring forward a fresh proposal for 33 Creechurch Lane, recognising the changed circumstances. Ms McCollough stated the owners of 33 Creechurch Lane were looking forward to positive, collaborative engagement with the City and all other stakeholders, particularly the Bevis Marks Synagogue.

In response to a Member’s question, an Officer stated than in a conservation area, certain demolitions required relevant demolition consent.

A Member asked why out of the three modern buildings in and around the conservation area, two had been excluded (One Creechurch Place and 31 Bury Street) and one had been included (33 Creechurch Lane.) The Officer stated that all three buildings had been assessed. One Creechurch Place was deemed not to have a coherent relationship with the surrounding buildings proposed to be within the conservation area. 31 Bury Street was considered to have a detrimental relationship with the surrounding historic urban green fabric and plan form and was therefore excluded. 33 Creechurch Lane was recognised to be of limited inherent interest in its own right but was considered to contribute to the setting of the synagogue and some of the surrounding historical buildings.

In response to a Member’s question, an Officer stated that casework, live or emerging applications could not be taken into account when considering a conservation area. The statutory duty was to consider the merits of the area proposed.

In response to a Member’s question, the Officer confirmed that discussions about how the conservation area would best reflect the preservation of the Synagogue’s significance had taken place with the Synagogue representatives and would continue to take place through the consultation period. Discussions would also take place with other stakeholders with properties or an interest in the area. Stakeholders would have the opportunity to input into the proposals for the conservation area.

A Member asked if the boundary could be amended after consultation depending on the consultation outcomes. An Officer confirmed that this would be the case. Members were informed that the boundary proposed was based on an initial assessment by Officers based on their detailed heritage understanding of the area. It had taken into account historic and architectural merits of the buildings and structures in the area and the historic pattern of development.

The Officer stated that stakeholders and members of the public might consider a different boundary, or the inclusion of different buildings, to be more appropriate. Responses would be welcomed and would be considered by Officers who would inform Members and provide an Officer recommendation when the consultation results were considered by the Committee.

A Member asked if discussion had taken place with Historic England on the alternative boundaries. It was suggested that along with the Officers’ preferred and proposed outline, that alternative boundaries should be outlined in the consultation. It was also suggested that the consultation period be extended to allow full consultation over the summer.

An Officer stated that a question could be included asking people explicitly whether they thought an alternative boundary would be better than the one proposed. The boundary proposed by the Synagogue could be published as part of the consultation and shown as an alternative. The Officer suggested there should be a specific proposal so consultees were clear on the consultation and could comment in favour or against this proposal. Consideration would be given to the questions asked and the material presented during the consultation events. The Officer stated that six weeks was the statutory minimum consultation period for a conservation area proposal. This consultation would last for eight weeks and if the timetable permitted, it could be extended further.  It was proposed to bring the consultation results back to the Committee by the end of the year.

In response to a Member’s question, the Officer stated that informal discussions would continue with Historic England through the consultation process. They had not provided a formal view but they would also be a statutory consultee and were likely to provide a formal response.

In response to a Member’s question, an Officer stated that the peer review had been undertaken by a conservation expert who was formally Head of the London Region at Historic England. They had seen the alternative boundary proposals and concluded that the proposed one was appropriate, in their professional judgement.

A Member commented on the historic warehouses, narrow alleyways and houses of worship in the wider area and stated that by including these in the conservation area, this would protect the setting of the historic buildings. She stated that including 31 Bury Street would ensure it was not demolished as this would have a detrimental impact on a range of historic buildings including the warehouses, Bevis Marks Synagogue and Holland House. She commented that 31 Bury Street was joined to Holland House which was a Grade 2* building. She also suggested the inclusion of Aldgate Station due to the direct impact it had on St Botolph’s Church. She also requested that the consultation be accessible to those without access to the internet.

The Chairman stated that having a wide consultation and gaining the views of stakeholders on the proposal would enable to boundary to be redrawn if appropriate. He stated that the consultation should be an exemplar of the Statement of Community Involvement.

The Officer stated that Paragraph 191 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that when considering the designation of conservation areas, Local Planning Authorities should ensure that an area justified such status because of its special architectural or historic interest and the concept of conservation was not devalued through the designation of areas that lacked special interest. Officers considered that the area outline, subject to consultation and feedback, met this requirement. It included a number of heritage assets that had special architectural and historic interest and the area was informed by the historic development of this area over many centuries. The Officer recognised that this was the first stage of the process, and a broad range of feedback would inform the consultation.

In response to a Member’s question, the Officer stated that conservation areas were not in place to prevent change or preserve areas but were there to manage change in a sensitive way. The proposed conservation area along with the Leadenhall Conservation Area and St Helen’s Place Conservation Areas were in the city cluster which would continue to consolidate, so the setting of the conservation area would continue to change.

In response to the Chairman’s question, the Officer stated that Local Plans Sub-Committee had recently considered a report suggesting that an immediate setting area was set up covering a tightly drawn area immediately around the Bevis Marks Synagogue. This would ensure that its setting as a Grade 1 listed building was recognised by planning policy to ensure that any developments in the immediate area continued to respect its significance. This was part of a separate process and the Local Plan would be consulted on later in the year subject to the Committee’s agreement. The conservation area fell under separate legislation and had separate regulatory requirements so there were two separate processes being followed.

In response to a Member’s question about the way in which the alternative boundaries would be outlined to consultees, the Officer stated that there would be opportunities in the engagement for people to see alternative boundaries. A Member stated that to be an exemplar consultation, it would need to be accessible, and consultees should be facilitated in being informed of the alternatives rather than technically being allowed to access them. This would enable stakeholders and members of the public to make an assessment of the alternatives.

Following comments from Members, the Officer stated that that it would be made clear that the boundary proposed was a suggested boundary and that a number of alternative boundaries could be outlined as part of the consultation. It would be made clear that the alternative boundaries were not the suggested boundaries informed by the work of Officers but would be included to give members of the public and stakeholders the option to select these or suggest a boundary of their own. The Committee would then be informed of the options selected and Officers would make a recommendation to the Committee.

Having fully debated the application, the Committee proceeded to vote on each of the recommendations before them.

Votes were cast as follows:

Recommendation 1 - That Members consider the assessment;

IN FAVOUR – 17 Votes

           OPPOSED –  no Votes

There were no abstentions.

Recommendation 2 – That Members agree the area that had the potential to be designated as a Conservation Area, subject to public consultation;

                                                IN FAVOUR – 17 Votes

                                                OPPOSED – no Votes

                                                There were no abstentions.

Recommendation 3 – That Members authorise public consultation to be carried out on the proposal for a new ‘Creechurch Conservation Area’;

                                                IN FAVOUR – 14 Votes

                                                OPPOSED – 3 Votes

                                                There were no abstentions

The recommendations were therefore carried.

Deputy John Fletcher was not present for the vote.

RESOLVED – That Members:-

1.         consider the assessment;

2.         agree the area that had the potential to be designated as a Conservation Area, subject to public consultation;

3.         authorise public consultation to be carried out on the proposal for a new ‘Creechurch Conservation Area’.