Ardgrain

Sample Objection letter 2

This sample objection letter is from an actual planning application. After the first planning application at Nether Ardgrain in 2007 was refused at committee, a second application proposed a large and imposing house on the historic site. This objection letter (also known as a letter of representation) was submitted to object to the proposed residential development.

To make your objections to a planning application heard, you must submit what is known as a letter of representation (see our respond pages for tips on writing an effective letter of representation).

The main topics covered in this objection letter include:

• Historic objections, including a loss of character, site and setting
• Loss of privacy
• Overlooked windows
• Increased traffic
• Private water supply damage
• Buildings still serve a functional purpose (unnecessary development)

This objection letter may be used as a guide, template or for reference, when writing your own objection letter. Remember that each planning application is unique, and the objections outlined in this letter may not be applicable to your own situation.

A PDF version of the report with pictures was submitted to Aberdeenshire Council can be downloaded from the below link, or is available from the Aberdeenshire Council website.

Nether Ardgrain - objections to Residential Development APP 2007/1261 and APP 2007/1262 (PDF: 670k)

 

 

Dear Sirs,

Objections to proposed steadings conversion to form 1 no dwellinghouse at Nether Ardgrain, Ellon, and listed building consent at steadings at Nether Ardgrain, Ellon.

REF: APP 2007/1261 & APP 2007/1262

We took ownership of Nether Ardgrain in September 2005. Nether Ardgrain has been given a Grade A listing by Historic Scotland, which is the highest possible listing, and means it is a site of National architectural and historic importance.

 
Nether Ardgrain has had tenants on this site since 1492. Nether Ardgrain was the seat of the Barony of Ardgrain, and was erected to royal charter in 1528. The Kennedy’s of Kermuck, who built Nether Ardgrain, had earlier erected Ellon Castle as their fortalice.

The Kennedy’s were hereditary Constables of Aberdeen, and the dignitary of ‘Constable of Aberdeen’ was fixed to the Ardgrain barony.

RCAHMS describe Nether Ardgrain as:

One of the crispest, sparest and most truly Scots houses in the north-east.

Two storeys and attic, harled with skewputs, thin jambs and a central, slightly projecting, one-window gable which is the pleasing focus. Steeply battered walls (including the centre gable), roll-moulded doorpiece and chamfered jambs to all front windows are 17th-century work. The doorpiece is crowned with an arched panel inscribed HOW HAPPY WOVLD THE HVSBANDMAN BE IF HE KNEW / HIS OWN GOOD (VIRGIL) LET IMPROVEMENTS AND LIBERTY FLOVRISH which could stand as a text for the whole Improving Movement, and there is a sundial over. The interior woodwork is all 1751.

Ardgrain is described within the text of Blaeu's atlas of Scotland, published in 1662, of which the map below illustrates.

As owners of half the total Nether Ardgrain site, we strongly object to the proposed steading conversion at Nether Ardgrain on the following grounds:

 

•    Grade A Listing – National Importance of Site.

Nether Ardgrain was listed as Grade A on the 16th of April 1971 by Historic Scotland. Grade A listing is defined as:

Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic, or fine little-altered examples of some particular period, style or building type.

Aberdeenshire Council Sites and Monuments describe Nether Ardgrain as:

Medieval (from 1100 AD); Post-Medieval (from 1560).
Farmhouse; dated CR 1664 at Royal Coat-of-arms centre gable & J E B 1751 at lintel.
The coat-of-arms relates to Ardgrain becoming a barony in the early 16thC. The present house was erected by John Kennedy of Kermuck who purchased the barony in 1629; reconstructed in the mid-18thC; all interior woodwork of this date; 2-storey and dormerless attic, harled, skewputts,  steeply battered walls, approximately symmetrical S front with centre 1-window gable of slight projection, roll-moulded doorpiece with arched panel and sundial over it; original chimneypieces at 1st floor, one moulded 17th or 18thC, one c 1800; column-balustered stair; SE ground floor room formerly had chimneypiece in SW angle.

Historically, to the present day Nether Ardgrain has been a farm. Ellon records indicate that there has been a site here from the medieval period onwards.

Aberdeenshire Local Plan (Policy Env\18) states:

All Listed Buildings or structures contained in the statutory list of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest for Aberdeenshire shall be protected against any works which would have a detrimental effect on their listed character, integrity or setting by the refusal of listed building consent and/or planning permission.

To consider converting the nationally important historic farm complex at Nether Ardgrain, which dates back to the medieval period, into residential buildings is wrong. The setting, which forms much of the character of Nether Ardgrain will be permanently and irreversibly lost if this development is allowed to go ahead. The proximity of the steadings to the main house means that conversion will have a very visible and hugely negative impact on the Ardgrain site. NPPG/18 opens by saying historic sites in Aberdeenshire shall be protected from development. On these grounds we would ask that the planning application is refused.

Aberdeenshire Local Plan states (policy Env\18):

Aberdeenshire’s built heritage is irreplaceable and must be preserved and conserved for present and future generations.

Listed Buildings make a significant contribution to the character and amenity of Aberdeenshire. The fact that a building is obsolete for a period of time is not in itself a justification for unsympathetic change. Listed Buildings are at their most vulnerable when vacant, so encouragement is given to appropriate redevelopment that protects and enhances character. They are a valuable resource that can stimulate enjoyment of the wider environment and act as an important medium for education, recreation and tourism. As such, they must be protected. For this reason precedence will be given to the requirements of this Policy, when there is any conflict with the requirements of other policies in this plan.

There has been no justification for change (more on this later).

Nether Ardgrain is contained within the statutory list of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest for Aberdeenshire due to its Grade A listing, and as such is protected by the Aberdeenshire Council policy Env\18 and The Scottish Executive NPPG 18.

We therefore request that the planning application is refused.
 

•    Previous Refusal of Planning Permission – Site is not suited to development.

A planning application was submitted in 2006 to convert the steadings into two large houses and a business unit. The plans were refused at committee because:

• The proposed development would have had a permanent negative impact of the Grade A listed site at Nether Ardgrain, and represents an overdevelopment.
• The business unit was too far from Ellon.
• The location was not suited to a business unit.

The physical proximity of the steadings at Nether Ardgrain to the farmhouse means that the primary reason for refusal still remains. To develop these steadings will have a permanently negative impact on this historic site. The site is not suited to development.

We would ask that the proposed development is refused.

•    Curtilage Listing – Steadings are integral to Nether Ardgrain’s character.

Nether Ardgrain was Grade A listed by Historic Scotland in 1971. The house plus two steadings and three gardens were sold in 1982 by the applicant of this planning application, ten years after the site was listed. This land sold is the house, buildings and gardens which we now own. At the time of listing in 1971, the entire site was a single entity, and thus the Grade A listing equally applies to the steadings, which fall under the curtilage of the main house. As was Historic Scotland’s practice at the time, only the main building at a historic site was specifically listed. Had the site been listed today, each building would be listed in their own right. Historic Scotland are now starting a programme to re-assess all sites in Scotland to list the curtilage items specifically, and we await a review by Historic Scotland over the next few years.

The buildings were agricultural at the time of listing, and due to their proximity form a large part of the character and setting at Nether Ardgrain, which after all is listed as a farm house.
 
Government legislation states:

The curtilage of a listed building is normally considered to be the land, buildings and structures which go with or are ancillary to the principal building. Any buildings or structures which formed part of the land associated with, or belonging to, the principal building at the time of listing are considered to be within the ‘curtilage’ of the listed building and are therefore considered part of it. Buildings or structures that date from after 1st July 1948, and which are unattached to the listed building, are not considered to be curtilage listed.

Typically, structures covered by curtilage listing might include: walls, gates, railings, gatehouses, stables, urns, statues, dairies, barns, privies and cart sheds.

The Grade A protection afforded to our house therefore extends to the surrounding buildings.

The applicant’s barns have been severely neglected in recent years. For example, the gable end of a barn has been partly demolished to allow tractor access, and crudely rebuilt with concrete breezeblocks. Sarking and slates on most of the roofs are slipping and rotting, and have been doing so for a number of years. No repairs have been undertaken. This neglect has allowed rainwater in, which is rotting the main beams.

A corner of a barn roof has fallen away (Dec 06), in full view of passing traffic on the track, yet no repairs have been made to date. With the wooden beams exposed to the weather, further deterioration is occurring right now, and yet months later the necessary repairs have still not been made.

The Bothy at Nether Ardgrain (thought to be the last Bothy of its kind in the North East of Scotland), and shown in the picture below, is very dilapidated and is no longer weatherproof. It too is owned by the applicant. The window is missing, the door is off its hinges and the Bothy is slowly crumbing. It is a tragedy that this historic building, thought to be the last of its kind, is being abused in such a way, and again highlights the neglect at the Nether Ardgrain site. 

These examples, of which there are many more, highlight that these barns are not being maintained in keeping with their Grade A curtilage listing. To argue that the proposed development is for ‘conservation’ would be false, given the decades of neglect these barns have suffered.

The proposed development merely cashes-in on the high value such steadings currently demand when developed into houses, and has in our view, nothing whatsoever to do with conservation.

Grade A listing extends to the interiors of buildings. Internal structural features of the steadings will be lost under the proposed development. A plethora of new openings, windows, skylights and patio doors, with new boundary walls and landscaped gardening completely destroy the identity and integrity of these buildings.

Conversion into houses is also, by definition, irreversible. The conversion into a large and imposing house is in no way keeping with the original steadings, or their function, at the time of Grade A listing.

We request that the proposed steading conversion is not allowed to go ahead.

•    Restoration – An alternative to residential development exists.

We believe that restoration, not development, is the best way to protect the Nether Ardgrain site. This will allow the buildings to continue to serve a needed and functional purpose. These buildings should not have been allowed to fall into their current state, and have been lacking any form of maintenance or repairs for decades.

The applicant has not put forward any reasons to justify the proposed change of use for these listed agricultural buildings. Indeed the applicant’s supporting letter states that the buildings will be used more heavily if the planning application is refused. The applicant therefore agrees that these buildings can still serve a functional agricultural purpose.

It would be fair to say the buildings are in dire need of need sympathetic repair.

A change of use checklist for a listed site can be found on the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) website (http://www.spab.org.uk/html/advice/conservation-advice/change-of-use) and a copy of this is included at the end of this letter. None of the criteria for the proposed change of use from agricultural to residential have been met.

It has wrongly been said by the applicant that conversion into a house is in our (that is the owners of the main house at Nether Ardgrain) best interests, and that the alternative to this development is increased agricultural traffic etc. We would like to make it clear that we looked for our dream house for three years before deciding that Nether Ardgrain was perfect.

We don’t want to see the site of our home destroyed and lost forever– but that is what we face. We love the rural setting and the centuries of history that surround our historic site. We did not choose to live in a cul-de-sac housing scheme. We have no issued with reasonable agricultural uses for these farm buildings. What we chose, after years of searching, was a country farmhouse. We did not choose to live on a building site, or at a housing scheme.

•    Offer of Purchase –  A party is willing to undertake and fund the repairs.

After the last planning application was submitted, we made a formal offer to purchase these buildings from the applicant for £100,000 (which is twice their estimated value). The applicant refused this, and would only sell the buildings to us for £200,000.

We estimate another £100,000 or more is needed just to repair and restore these buildings, putting right decades of damage and neglect, so cannot meet the applicants over-inflated price.

Ideally the applicant himself should be asked to repair these curtilage listed grade A buildings, given their proximity to the main house, and the damage and neglect to the barns that has occurred over the years. But I understand that these restorations will be costly, which is why we offered to buy them and fund the repairs ourselves. We can fund the repairs, and have the commitment, what we ask for is support in making this happen.
 
There now exists an alternative to residential development, namely restoration. Historic Scotland's memorandum of guidance states that the best use for a historic building is not necessarily the most profitable. We hope all can agree that sympathetic restoration is preferable to irreversible conversion.

Emphasis must be placed on the fact that we do not want to create a museum piece which just sits empty. Our intention is to continue using the restored buildings, by letting the barns out for agricultural use at a nominal token rent. In this way the buildings can continue to serve a functional agricultural purpose, hopefully for many centuries more.

Referencing the SPAB change of use checklist at the end of this letter:  a change of use should not go ahead if there is a third party willing to purchase and repair the buildings.

We fully understand that the council might wish to confirm that we are not just making idle claims. We do have the funds, and we can, on request, verify this to the Council.

On these grounds we ask that the planning application is refused.

•    Water – A private and vulnerable supply.

Nether Ardgrain, due to its remote location, is not connected to either mains water or public sewerage systems. Our house is served by a single borehole well for water, and has a soakaway septic system downhill from the house to handle effluent. Our drinking water system is fitted with a series of filters to remove nitrates and bacteria. The water barely passed the nitrate and bacteria tests performed by the previous owners on selling, even with additional filters fitted. At its current levels the water is unsuitable for elderly persons, small children or expectant mothers.

SEPA guidelines state that agricultural manure cannot be spread within 50 metres of a private borehole well. In December manure was again spread a mere 15 metres from our well, on the applicant’s adjacent land. We have held off raising this with SEPA, but this infringement accounts for the elevated nitrate levels in our drinking water. We note that the steading conversion may be served by private water supply from a similar but separate borehole, bordering two of the applicant’s fields. We would caution that this too will have manure spread well below the SEPA 50 metre exclusion zone, and may not be fit for human consumption.

The pump for our water supply thermally cut-out three times last summer during a prolonged dry spell, raising concerns that the water level was running low in the well. This is with justified reason; approximately 15 years ago a second well had to be drilled by the previous owner when the first ran dry. With just two adults using our well and underlying aquifer, we may not have too much of a problem. The additional burden of supplying a second large house on the site may however prove to be more than the aquifer can supply, especially during the summer months.

Behind the steadings is an area of marshy land, elevated from our well, which will have to be drained if the proposed development goes ahead. Wells, such as the one we rely on for our water supply, are especially sensitive to ground disturbances and building work. There is a risk that the draining of the marsh area or extensive building work on the steadings will have a damaging and permanent effect on our water supply, potentially leaving us without a usable water supply.

In recent months this ground has been driven over, turning the marshy land into a track of sorts. The picture overleaf, taken towards the end of last summer, shows the waterlogged marshland clearly visible, adjacent to the Dutch barn.
 

It should be noted that any development which occurs within close proximity to a sensitive watercourse will produce a source and pathway to a sensitive receptor. This infringes on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ‘Groundwater Protection Policy’, which aims to dissuade developments that may have a detrimental effect on groundwater for potable use.  

The site in question is classified as ‘most sensitive’ due to the natural spring which is used for drinking water, adjacent to Nether Ardgrain. Any development in close proximity to this sensitive watercourse would risk disturbing sediments and contaminating drinking water supplies.

Our distance from mains water means that should our water fail, as a result of extensive building work and draining of marshland for gardens, we will be left with a huge financial bill to have Nether Ardgrain connected to a mains water supply.

For these reasons we would ask that the planning application is refused.

•    Future Intentions – Two new houses.

It is significant that this application for a single house uses the full extent of the two houses proposed in the previous planning application, which was refused on the grounds that it would be a detrimental overdevelopment. Our concern is that while this application is for conversion of two steadings into a single huge residential unit, plans will be revised at a later date for conversion into two large residential units. We have been advised that this is a common ploy used to circumvent planning restrictions. Entrances to the two separate houses from the previous planning application have been exactly carried forward to this new planning application.

The previous application for two large houses and a business unit was refused at Nether Ardgrain because the proposed development was considered detrimental to the site and setting at Nether Ardgrain, and was also noted as being an over development of the site. Other than physically moving the steadings to a different location, the primary grounds for refusal still stand; developing Nether Ardgrain will have a permanent and very negative impact on a nationally important historic site.

Recent planning decisions have set a precedent that steadings become houses in their own right after a number of years. This allows extensions and conservatories to be built onto steadings. If this planning application goes ahead, the site may be further developed and extended once the steadings are classified as houses over the coming years, so causing further degradation to the Nether Ardgrain site.

•    Boundary Walls – A very visual subdivision of the site

The land division by the applicant in 1982 may have been, in part, acceptable. The division was on paper only. No new boundaries were erected.

The proposed steading conversion however visually subdivides the Ardgrain site, by the construction of boundary walls, and will have a very negative visual impact on the site. This impacts on the sites character, separating the farmhouse from its adjacent farm buildings, and we ask that the planning application is refused.

•    Privacy – Windows will be overlooked.

The steadings to be developed form a courtyard which gives much of Nether Ardgrain its character. The steadings are integral to the setting. Within the courtyard, though not shown on the applicants submitted plans, is the Victorian style wooden conservatory of our house:

 
(Picture of conservatory and ground floor bedroom window to the left)

From the conservatory, in which we dine in during the summer months, we have a full and clear view to the steadings as shown in the pictures overleaf. 

To convert the steadings, will mean we are completely overlooked we will loose our privacy. We have a bedroom on the ground floor which looks towards the steadings. This too will be overlooked, and again a steading conversion will result in a loss of privacy in this bedroom.

Our master bedroom, on the first floor looks down into the steadings. We will be overlooking the steadings and its first floor bedrooms, if a conversion is allowed to go ahead. We also have a third floor window which looks directly down into the steadings.

•    Environmental Habitats and Impact

Within the Dutch barn to the rear of the site, is an owl nesting box, placed there to house Barn Owls. We frequently see the barn owls, they trip the motion sensor lights outside at dusk, and we occasionally see three owls together. The proposed plans indicate that the Dutch barn will be demolished, removing the nesting site for these owls.

We are glad to see the removal of the 1970’s Dutch barn, which is in a poor state of repair and dilapidated, but no alternative nesting has been proposed for the Barn Owls. Barn Owls are a protected species.

The steadings are also home to bats, which can be seen in the evenings on summer months, and again, bats are a protected species. Their habitat shall be permanently lost if steadings are converted.

The North East LPAB Priority Species List states that Pipistralle bats are part of the UK priority species. The same document lists the Barn Owl as a UK species of Conservation Concern.

Aberdeenshire Council Policy Env\4 sates:

Development that would have an adverse effect on habitats or species protected under British or European Law, or identified as a priority in UK or Local Biodiversity Action Plans, or on other valuable habitats, will be refused unless the developer demonstrates:
a) that the public benefits at a local level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat for biodiversity conservation;
b) that the development will be sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the site, including its environmental quality, ecological status and viability; AND
c) that there will be no further fragmentation or isolation of habitats as a result of the development.

The planning application does not address any of the above.

•    Incorrect Plans

The plans relating to the proposed steading conversion are incorrect. For example, significant features of our house are missing. Buildings are shown on the Nether Ardgrain site which no longer exist. The scale of buildings and their position relative to each other is incorrect.

To highlight an example of the incorrect plans, the south elevation on the plans shows the back barn to extend to the centre of the stables on the right, whereas the plan view shows the back barn to end before the stables. Both views are in complete contradiction, and one (or both) views are therefore incorrect.

Given that the plans are not correct, and in places the views contradict each other, we ask that a true and dimensionally accurate survey is undertaken to allow all to be fully aware of the site layout.  The portions of land owned by us are not indicated on the plans.

A planning decision cannot be made on incorrect plans. We ask that the applicant is asked to submit correct plans that detail the full curtilage to allow all to see the full impact the proposed development will have at Nether Ardgrain.

•    Access

Nether Ardgrain is accessed by a single lane hardcore track of 250 metres. We have access rights to use the track, and the deeds, which were drafted by the applicant when the land was split under his ownership, state that all users must contribute to the maintenance and repairs in proportion to the damage that occurs.

This is not what happens. We have taken on the sole responsibility and cost of maintenance for this track, and the applicant (whose tractors do ~80% of the damage) has not contributed in any way to the upkeep or costs of maintaining this track since we have moved in. We understand that the previous owners of Nether Ardgrain were forced to do likewise, again at their own expense.  To now add a second house to the site will compound the damage to the track and further add to the upkeep required. There is already a conflict with the track and its upkeep.

• Who pays for the materials necessary to fill the potholes? (£150 a year with current traffic)
• Who manually fills the potholes? (an average of 3 hours a week, or 150+ hours a year, at current traffic levels )

It should be noted that a useable track depends on the vehicle. A ‘usable’ track for a tractor or pick-up can be rutted and potholed, but the same track is not usable for residential access.

Tractors continually pull mud from waterlogged fields onto the track, despite our complaints, and with a disregard for residential access. No effort is made to lay gravel at field entrances (which incidentally is a requirement for field entrances on public roads), and the track in winter becomes almost impassable with the quantity of manure and mud dropped by the applicants tractors.

The track is very old, connecting Nether Ardgrain to the early Aberdeen - Fraserburgh road (this no longer exists, from our track onwards it becomes a footpath), and the track leading to Nether Ardgrain and the associated walls which line it are also protected under curtilage. The track forms part of the considerable history and character of Nether Ardgrain, and was under single ownership with the house at the time of Grade A listing. As such, the track must also be protected from unnecessary damage. The bringing of construction equipment necessary for the steading conversion will also place additional loads and damage on a track not designed for such traffic.

•    Noise

At its closest, the house is 5 metres from the steadings, with the track running between. Three sides of our house are exposed to the track and courtyard. Being Grade A listed, our house is fitted with single glazed sash units, and our Grade A listing may prevent us from fitting double glazed units. Over centuries, the track has built up, and today the living room window lower sill is less than 0.5m from being flush with the track surface.
Passing traffic and pedestrians look down into our living room. Additional traffic will result in a significant loss of privacy.

Traffic on the track is only a few feet away from eight windows on the house, a living room window, two windows in our sitting room, two upstairs bedroom windows, an 3rd floor window and two hallway windows.

Furthermore, we have a bathroom window, a downstairs bedroom window, an upstairs bedroom window, a 3rd floor window and our conservatory all within the courtyard which will all be exposed to increased traffic and elevated noise levels.

The very close proximity of the steadings, with all the associated noise will be very intrusive to a single glazed house such as ours. We will have limited options to reduce noise levels, by for example introducing double glazing, because of our A listed status.

 
•    Access to Fields

Being a farm, there is a continuation of the track, leading from our courtyard to the neighbouring fields. The proposed steading conversion has gardens which overlay this track and the adjacent farmland, so block this track. Clearly access will still be required to the fields served by the existing track, but there is no provision for this on the plans. To gain access, farm traffic will either have to pass directly in front of our house, behind our vegetable garden, or between our steading and the proposed outbuilding.

In each of these options, no track currently exists. Nor would we want to see a new track introduced. All three routes would lead to an increase in intrusions, and will be to the detriment of our privacy. However a formal and suitable track will be required to prevent the area becoming overwhelmed by mud during the wet winter months should the plans be approved.

There is nothing within the proposed plans to indicate if access will be required through the courtyard to the field adjacent to our second steading.  Access to fields has therefore not been addressed on the plans, other than identifying that the current access track will be blocked by the proposed steading conversions.

 
•    Summary and Closing Remarks

The steadings are Grade A curtilage listed. An earlier planning application was refused because of the detrimental effects a development would have at Nether Ardgrain. With no investment the steadings will continue to deteriorate and will slowly collapse. The Bothy, the last of its kind in the North East will be lost. It would be wrong to convert the steadings into a large and imposing house because this would be at the expense of Nether Ardgrain’s national heritage and importance.

The conversion of the steadings into a large and imposing house will be highly detrimental to the historic status of Nether Ardgrain. The steadings are integral to the site. The buildings should not have been allowed to fall into their current condition, and they have unfortunately been neglected for some time. Investment by their current owner would restore these steadings to their former condition, in keeping with their Grade A status and we request that this should take place without delay.

In the event that the above cannot take place, we would be prepared to purchase the steadings, for a fair and reasonable price, and restore them to farm buildings. If the current owner still needs the storage space provided by the barns, we will rent them back, while ensuring that they are maintained and preserved in keeping with their A listed status. We would like to stress that this is in no way our preferred solution; we would like to see the barns restored and retained by their current owner.

Access to fields, as a result of converting the track to a garden, will be lost, and no suggestion has been put forward on where the new track will be routed through the historic site.

No provision has been made to cater for the protected species at the site.

This development represents a huge loss of privacy, with our bedroom windows and glass conservatory being overlooked. The scale of this cannot be fully appreciated because the plans submitted by the applicant are incorrect.

We stand to face not only a loss of privacy, but we are virtually powerless to counter the additional noise a second house introduces to the site, because of the difficulties in double glazing our Grade A listed house.

We trust our objections will be put before the Planning Committee in due course prior to a decision being made on this application.

Yours sincerely,

Rae and Ellen Younger

 
SPAB guidelines for a change of use of a listed site.

http://www.spab.org.uk/html/advice/conservation-advice/change-of-use

CHANGE OF USE CHECKLIST
Issued by the SPAB Committee, 2002
Many historic buildings have well-established and appropriate uses. Occasionally though; some change is required to ensure a structure’s future care, repair and protection. Creative adaptation can contribute positively to a building’s history; equally, inappropriate re-use can fundamentally detract from its special interest. The SPAB therefore believes that, where some change of use to an historic structure is considered essential, it is necessary to look carefully at the effect on all aspects of the building’s character, fabric and setting. The following checklist is therefore intended to assist owners and their advisers in establishing what alternative use, if any, is most appropriate. The list should be read in conjunction with SPAB advisory documents and other statutory and non-statutory conservation guidance.

If the current use continues to be appropriate can it be maintained? If not why not?
If the building is currently redundant is there an immediate need for a change in use? Would minimal protective works, to allow "mothballing", or a short term low-key use, be a preferable alternative?
Is the new use likely to secure a future for the building, and to be viable for a foreseeable period without major change or addition?
Has the building been offered on the open market for its present use (if appropriate)?
To identify what might have least impact on fabric and character, has the nature of the building been fully understood?

An appreciation of the history and development of a place is essential in considering future use. Preparation of a Conservation Plan or Statement identifying the special interest of the building and its context, may help in this.
Have all potentially sympathetic uses been properly explored?
It may be possible to argue for forms of re-use which have significant benefits for the special interest of the building and its setting, even if contrary to normal local plan policy. This is particularly so in the case of listed buildings and scheduled monuments.

Can the building accommodate the requirements of the new use without seriously compromising the architectural character and/or historic fabric? Issues may include:
New openings:  number, type, style
Fire & Safety:  additional means of escape, protected stairs, upgrading of existing doors, partitions
Physical barriers to access:  thresholds, ramps, door furniture
Sub-division of existing rooms/spaces:  cornicing, panelling, plan form
Extension:  scale, design, use of materials, abutment with the existing building
Servicing:  introduction of pipework, electrical cabling, altering internal environment
The extent of rebuilding, if derelict or a ruin.
Floor loadings:  strengthening existing floor structures
Sound insulation: increased insulation requirements to floors walls and glazing
Thermal performance : increased insulation requirements to floors walls roofs and glazing

Can the building accommodate the requirements of the new use without seriously compromising its setting? Issues may include: -
Increased car parking:  location, surfacing, entrance/exit, sight lines
Division of open spaces:  building groups, farmyards
Separation from any historically-linked curtilage buildings
Fragmentation of the long term management of the buildings
Impact on standing or buried archaeological remains
Hard and soft landscaping: character of existing landscaping
Effect on the broader character of the Conservation Area

If circumstances change can any alterations be reversed without damage to the building? Reversibility should not be an excuse for work of poor quality, and sometimes there may be advantage in well conceived and executed permanent alteration, but the case for making change reversible should always be considered.