32 LAW & PRACTICE THE CURTILAGEISSUE: KENTWELLHALL,LONG MELFORD Kentwell Hall, mentioned in a will of 1563, built on an E-shaped plan, and being the second of two Grade I mansions in Long Melford, lies at the end of a magnificent avenue of lime trees, some 1.2 km from the main road. In 1913, the junction of the avenue of trees and the main road was marked by the erection of gates, acquired from Earlham Hall, Norfolk and moved to Kentwell for the sum of £15. In 1984 listed building consent was given for the gates to be moved nearer to the Hall, approximately 1 kilometre away from their original position. Two conditions were attached to the consent: "(l) within two years of the date of this consent details of structures to be erected in replacement for the gates to be removed, shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority; "(2) the agreed structure shall be erected within three months of their approval." These conditions were not complied with despite protracted negotiations. Therefore, in August 1990 the local authority served a listed building enforcement notice to seek compliance with the conditions. An appeal against the enforcement notice was fought, principally on the grounds that the gates installed in 1913 were not within the curtilage of the listed building (Kentwell Hall) and thus listed building consent was not needed to remove them. Furthermore the Local Authority was not entitled to attach such conditions, nor therefore to serve an enforcement notice. The Secretary of State for the Environment was unable to come to a decision on the original evidence. He therefore directed his Inspector to make a second site visit. The Inspector, following the further site visit and the submission of additional evidence from both the appellant and the local authority, came to the same conclusion, i.e. that the gates were within the curtilage of Kentwell Hall. The three tests formulated by Stephenson JL, in the Sutcliffe case were applied and the Secretary of State found that the gates were within the curtilage of Kentwell Hall as: (l)They are positioned at the end of an avenue of lime trees mentioned in the listing description; (2)They had remained in the common ownership of the Hall since being erected; and (3)They had always functioned as the main gateway to the Hall, since they had been erected. The Inspector also came to the conclusion that, in applying the test used in the Debenhams case, the gates seemed to have been 'part and parcel' with the Hall since their erection in 1913 and were listed by virtue of being within the curtilage of the Hall under the provisions of Section 1(5)(6) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990. On 24 February 1993 the Secretary of State for the Environment dismissed the appeal and upheld the enforcement notice, subject to minor changes in the period for compliance. Although this decision may not take the issue of curtilage significantly further forward, the fact that the gates were only erected in 1913 and were some distance from the Hall may make it of interest to other Conservation Officers. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in 1984 (before the Local Planning Authority was able to grant consent for the repositioning of the gates) the application was referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment. He subsequently authorised the Local Planning Authority to determine it. It can therefore be assumed that he was of the opinion, at that time, that listed building consent was required for the removal of the gates. One wonders whether the Secretary of State was able to determine the appeal against the enforcement notice in any other way than in favour of the Local Planning Authority? Richard Ward, Conservation Officer, Babergh District Council. Richard Ward wishes to acknowledge the help and assistance of Rosie Burton in rhe preparation of this summary during her student placement wirh rhe Council in the summer of 1993. COATING OF SLATESAT 4aROSE CRESCENT, CAMBRIDGE I had just got back from taking the principal assessor for our local Design Awards out to a 'thank you' lunch when a colleague told me that what looked like vanilla ice cream had been poured over the roof of a Grade II listed building in Rose Crescent, an early 19th century shopping street in the heart of the Cambridge Conservation Area. I found contractors at work putting on what they told me was the first part of a two-stage coating of 'Encacel V', a 'vapour barrier and weatherproof coating'. They said that the yellow coating could not be removed and that the grey final coat would have to be applied. The buildings turned out to be owned by Gonville and Caius College. I knew that I had yet another example of 'domestic-bursaritis' (an all too frequent Cambridge disease) on my hands. I went to the College and found the domestic bursar at home. He told me that the buildings needed major repairs, that the College could not afford to do these for at least 15 years, and that the roofs were being coated as a short-term measure until the major repairs could be carried out. Returning to the office, I raised the matter in a team meeting: the Assistant Director was the only person present who could not see what the problem was! I argued for immediate action (prosecution/enforcement) but his ruling was that we should invite what would be a retrospective application for listed building consent. The grey coating was applied, and the application was received. I consulted John Fidler at English Heritage, who commented that within a few weeks there was bound to be a leak, and they would not be able to find it. Before the application reached Committee (with refusal recommended) a letter was received from the domestic bursar saying that the work had been done by cowboys, that the roof had started to leak, and that the leak could not be traced! The application was refused and enforcement action authorised (for removal of the coating and the affected slates, and replacement with natural slates). The College then engaged an architect, under whose CONTEXT 40
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=