WEST MIDLANDS OFFICE
Mr Justin HowellDirect Dial: 0121 625 6886
BirminghamCity CouncilDirect Fax: 0121 625 6821
PO Box 28, AlphaTower
Suffolk Street, QueenswayOur ref: P00154855
Birmingham
B1 1TU
25 June 2012
Dear Mr Howell
Notifications under Circular 01/2001 & GDPO 1995
ACOCKSGREENBAPTISTCHURCH, YARDLEY ROAD, ACOCKS GREEN, BIRMINGHAM, B27 6HG
Application No 2012/03710/PA
Thank you for your letter of 15 June 2012 notifying English Heritage of the above application.
Summary
English Heritage objects to the application on the basis that it results in substantial harm to heritage assets as a result of the demolition involved and the aesthetic impact of the replacement building.
English Heritage Advice
The application concerns a complex of early C20th buildings erected over a period of 20-30 years by Birmingham Baptists. Two are listed grade II in their own right, the others are curtilage listed being subsidiary to the listed buildings and erected before 1947.The buildings are all individually significant in terms of the values identified in English Heritage’s “Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance” (2008). Their fabric contains evidential value relating to the layout, organisation and delivery of Baptist ministry and community activity. Their planning, layout and dates of construction demonstrate the historical development of the site, the growth and importance of the Baptist movement in this part of the city and its relationship with the City’s economic and social development. They have aesthetic value being typical of the range of architectural styles dominant at the time and contribute significantly to the quality of the streetscene in this way. They also clearly have communal value in terms of their provision of valued community and faith functions in the past and today, and as part of the collective memory of users and citizens.
The demolition of the Glynn Edwards Hall (curtilage listed) and consequential loss of historic fabric results in a loss of communal, historic, aesthetic and evidential value. The proposed replacement building has a substantial negative aesthetic impact on the complex as a whole and the wider streetscene. The negative impact on the significance of the heritage assets resulting from these aspects of the proposal is substantial.
The justification for the demolition of the Glynn Edwards Hall presented in Appendix H of the supporting information briefly presents the four options considered: internal alterations, conversion of attic space, erection of an additional storey and a replacement building. While English Heritage appreciates the issues relating to the provision of the desired level of accommodation, we are dismayed that the options appraisal did not benefit from a more robust assessment of the significance of the building and its contribution to the complex as a whole. The assessment provided as part of the application lacks any evidence of historical research, dismisses the historic, communal and evidential value of the buildings and ignores the value of the buildings as a group. English Heritage is not therefore convinced that the justification for demolition is sound.
Furthermore, even if the arguments relating to sustainability and public benefit were convincingly made, English Heritage does not consider that the harm to the aesthetic value of the heritage assets caused by the design of the proposed new building would be justified.
English Heritage’s concerns in this respect relate to the massing, location and materials of the proposal. While the scale of the proposal in the context of Alexander Road is generally satisfactory, the slate clad wing to Yardley Road appears too large and too close to the church. Though apparently set further back from the Yardley Road frontage than the single storey entrance of the Edward Glynn Hall, the double height new building is set far enough forward to dominate views of the church and the Arthur Moore Hall. The scale of the building does not seem to work well with the restrained contemporary domestic flavour of the gable. This combination appears rather awkward, out-sized and relates poorly to the more decorative architectural aesthetic of the existing buildings on the site and adjacent. The resulting visual dominance of the proposal is compounded by the choice of contrasting materials; slate hanging and roofing on the wings and the large expanse of render on the corner unit. The buildings in the application site and the vast majority of public and private buildings in the area are of brick under clay tile roofs, English Heritage is not convinced that the contrasting palette chosen for the new building is appropriate in this context.
Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, English Heritage considers that the application is contrary to paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF and should therefore be refused.
Please contact me if we can be of further assistance. We would be grateful to receive a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us to monitor actions related to changes to historic places.
Yours sincerely
Dr Sarah Lewis
Historic Environment Adviser
E-mail:
cc Julie Taylor, Principal Conservation Officer, BirminghamCity Council
/ THE AXIS 10 HOLLIDAY STREET BIRMINGHAM B1 1TGTelephone 0121 625 6820 Facsimile 0121 625 6821
English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies.