Condition of a Listed Building Wharncliffe Works 86 and 88 Green Lane Kelham Island
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REPORT TO CITY CENTRE AND EAST PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS AREA BOARD
12 JULY 2004
CONDITION OF A LISTED BUILDING: WHARNCLIFFE WORKS, 86 & 88 GREEN LANE, KELHAM ISLAND
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform members of the condition of Wharncliffe Works, Green Lane and to make recommendations on any further action required.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Following discussion at the City Centre and East Area Planning and Highways Board of 10 May 2004, members requested a report on the condition of Wharncliffe Works, Green Lane, and an indication of what powers are available to the Local Planning Authority, in the event of the condition of the building being unacceptable.
2.2 Wharncliffe Works, Green Lane, is currently owned by Mr. Gerald Duniec of Gerald Duniec & Company, Chartered Surveyors. The complex is in reasonable condition, although the Cornish Street range has suffered fire damage. The Section 4 below highlights the key areas of concern, and Appendix 1deals in more detail with the condition of the building.
2.3 Wharncliffe Works, Green Lane was listed on 18 October 1988, at grade II, at which point the building was in fair condition, given that it was then occupied by Langsett Industries, Sheet Metal Workers.
3 RECENT HISTORY OF THE BUILDING
3.1 In May 1992, permission was sought and approved to restore the building, and use the first and second floors of the complex as offices.
3.2 In March 1999, permission was sought and approved to convert part the complex to offices and consulting rooms, in a combined redevelopment of Wharncliffe Works, and Globe Works, on Penistone Road (application nos. 98/1107P and 98/1106)P. This permission was not exercised, and has now lapsed.
3.3 The building was first placed upon the Listed Buildings at Risk Register in June 1993, and the then owner’s agent was also written to, informing him of the powers the Local Planning Authority has to execute urgent or necessary repairs under sections 54 and 48 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and requiring certain works to be undertaken.
3.4 Following a bid for grant from English Heritage, in 1993, some £12,053 of grant was expended on the property, as a 25% contribution towards £48, 211.85 worth of works undertaken to the property.
3.5 A subsequent offer of grant aid was made to the current owner in 1998, but a letter to the City Council dated 23 November 1998, it was indicated that the deficit between the monies need to refurbish the building and development value was too great to be bridged by grant aid. The offer was not therefore pursued.
3.6 On 4 March 2004, officers from the Planning & Development section of Development Services met with the buildings owner, and his architect, to discuss new proposals for the conversion of the building to residential use. Officers responded positively to the proposals as tabled, but were not able to give a detailed evaluation as copes of the proposals were not provided.
3.7 In a letter to the Urban Design & Conservation Team, dated 25 May 2004, the owner stated that: his company:
“…would shortly be submitting a planning application for a multi million pound scheme to convert and extend Wharncliffe Works…”
3.8 The above mentioned Planning Application and Listed Building Consent were lodged with the City Council on Tuesday 29 June 2004. Members will be informed verbally as to the status of the application.
4. CONDITION OF THE BUILDINGS
4.1 An inspection of the external condition of the building was made on 17 May 2004. The buildings within the complex are considered to be in reasonable but somewhat deteriorating condition. The complex was assessed under the English Heritage Listed Buildings At Risk criteria in 1999, and was deemed to be in Risk Category 4. This suggested that it was “to be monitored”. It is now considered that the building falls into Category C, under English Heritage’s new assessment criteria, which states that the building
Slow decay; no solution agreed.
4.2 An inspection of the external condition of the building was made on 17 May 2004. The building has three ranges, whose condition are described in the following paragraphs. These are:
· The Green Lane range.
· The Cornish Street range.
· The Courtyard range (adjacent to globe Works boundary).
4.3 The Green Lane range (see Appendix 2 image nos 2, 5, 8, 9 & 10): 3 storey principal range including cart entrance; brickwork with stone detailing & painted stone entrances, under slate roof with timber gutters, metal & plastic downpipes, and timber windows, with a recently constructed steel stair and balcony access in courtyard, with single storey blockwork extension below.
· The range is considered to be in reasonable condition. However, missing brickwork to right & left of second floor gable window (see Appendix 2 image nos 3 & 4), missing brickwork to second floor arched window pier in gable (see Appendix 2 image no 6), cracking within brickwork around windows (see Appendix 2 image no 7) require urgent attention
· Interiors: it was not generally possible to gain access, but views through windows indicated the presence of pigeon corpses and excrement, which constitute a major health hazard to those entering the building (see Appendix 2 image no 13).
4.4 The Cornish Street range (see Appendix 2 image nos 14 & 15) : 3 storeys, in brickwork with stone detailing under slate roof with timber gutters, metal & plastic downpipes, timber and metal windows (excludes Courtyard Workshop-see para 4.5 below)
· Slate work in poor condition, holes in roof, slipped slates and lead flashings (see Appendix 2 image nos 16 & 17) require urgent attention.
· Holes in brickwork (see Appendix 2 image no 18) and missing, windows and missing, broken and cracked window panes require urgent attention.
· Missing windows and missing, broken and cracked window panes (see Appendix 2 image nos 14 & 15) require urgent attention.
· Interiors: it was not generally possible to gain access, but views through windows indicated relatively significant fire damage to ground floor and parts of first floor. The presence of pigeon corpses and excrement was noted, which constitute a major health hazard to those entering the building (see Appendix 2 image no 20).
4.5 The Courtyard workshop (see Appendix 2 image nos 21 & 22): single storey workshop in brickwork, under corrugated iron roof, with metal barge boards & gutters & plastic downpipes, with metal windows and metal sliding shutter doors (the building is not contemporary or of the same character with the Green Lane and Cornish Street ranges).
· This range is considered to be in poor condition.
4.6 Boundary and courtyard: the courtyard can currently only be accessed via the cart entrance, and it is protected by a 2.5 metre high stone built, gated boundary on its south western side. The courtyard is generally of brushed concrete, although setts are retained in situ under the cart entrance.
· Courtyard floorscape: in reasonable condition.
4.7 Conclusion: although the building is generally in reasonable condition, the roof, walls and windows of the Cornish Street range, and the gable of the Green Lane and windows (courtyard side) range require urgent attention.
5. ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS
5.1 The Local Planning Authority has powers to issue various notices under Sections 47 & 48 and 54 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, in respect of the preservation of Listed Buildings.
6. LISTED BUILDINGS REPAIRS NOTICE
6.1 Sections 47 & 48 enables the Local Planning Authority to issue a Listed Buildings Repairs Notices when it is considered that repairs are reasonably necessary to ensure the preservation of the listed building.
6.2 If after 2 months, the works have not been undertaken, the Local Planning Authority can commence measures to Compulsorily Purchase the building in order undertake the works, if it chooses to do so, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State.
6.3 The owner may apply to the magistrates’ court in order to allow for negotiation, if the owner can demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken to preserve the building.
6.4 The Local Planning Authority is required to compensate the owner, but only in respect of the listed buildings, the site upon which they stand, and the effect of any extant Listed Building Consent. Compensation is not paid in respect of the value of a cleared site, or of any extant Planning Permissions.
6.5 If the Secretary of state is satisfied that the building has been allowed to deteriorate in order to secure its demolition, he can allow the Local Planning Authority’s request that minimum compensation be paid. This can also be the subject of an appeal to the magistrates’ court, provided the owner can demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken to preserve the building.
6.6 There are other grounds for appeal to the Secretary of State and if appropriate, a Public Inquiry or other hearing may be held.
6.7 Should the Local Planning Authority proceed with the Compulsory Purchase Order, provision may be put in place to sell the property on to a third party, on the understanding that they would undertake the works set out in the Listed Building Repairs Notice.
6.8 At present, the City Council is in receipt of Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme funding for the buildings of the Sheffield Metal Trades. This funding can be used to pay 25% of the costs of eligible works, which would cover all works specified in the Listed Building Repairs Notice. This would be conditional on:
i) The grant being matched funded from another source of public funds.
ii) The building being utilised for the purposes of creating or securing jobs.
7. LISTED BUILDING URGENT WORKS NOTICE
7.1 Section 54 enables the Local Planning Authority to issue a Listed Buildings Urgent Works Notices when it is considered that repairs are urgently necessary to ensure the preservation of the listed building.
7.2 If the owner has not commenced the required works or demonstrated his intention to do so within a specified period, the Council may enter the site and have the work undertaken itself.
7.3 The Council can seek to recover any reasonable costs it has incurred, but it cannot make a charge against the land, or attempt to recover the costs from a new owner should the land be sold.
7.4 If the Local Planning Authority can satisfactorily demonstrate that it has used its best endeavours to recover its costs, but has been unable to do so, it can apply to English Heritage to be reimbursed for 50% of the costs incurred.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 It is not considered that the buildings within the Wharncliffe Works complex are in imminent danger. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable at this stage to issue a Listed Building Repairs Notice, given lodging of a Planning Application and Listed Building Consent to convert and extend Wharncliffe Works.
8.2 In order to secure those parts of the building which are deemed to be in need of urgent attention, and make them safe, sound and weathertight, it is considered that in the first instance, a Listed Building Urgent Works Notice should be issued, in order to arrest any further deterioration of the building.
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 There are financial implications for the City Council, as referred to in section 7 above. The costs likely of the works has yet to be determined, but is considered to be modest. The necessary resources will be found from existing Planning Revenue budgets.
9.2 As indicated in para. 7.3 above, the Council may not be able to recover monies from future owners of the property.
9.3 As indicated in para. 7.4 above, the Council may be reimbursed for some of the costs incurred.
10. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
10.1 There are no equal opportunities implications arising from the recommendations in this report.
11. RECOMMENDATION
11.1 That a draft Listed Building Urgent Works Notice should prepared and costed by the relevant officers within Development Services.
11.2 That the City Council write to the owner informing him of their intention to issue a Listed Building Urgent Works Notice, unless he can satisfactorily demonstrate that, within 28 days of the date of the letter, he as undertaken the work specified, or that it will be completed within a reasonable period following the expiry of the 28 day deadline.
11.3 If following the expiry of this deadline, the City Council is not satisfied that the works have been, or imminently to be carried out, this Area Board authorises the Head of Planning to issue a Listed Building Urgent Works Notice, as necessary, in order to secure the making safe, sound, and weathtight all buildings within the complex at Wharncliffe Works, 86-88 Green Lane, Sheffield, S3.
11.4 That this Area Board authorises the Head of Planning to commission works to execute the Listed Building Urgent Works Notice, if deemed necessary.
11.5 That the Head of Planning reports to a future Area Board on any development affecting Wharncliffe Works, 86-88 Green Lane, Sheffield, S3.
Les Sturch
Head of Planning Division
Development Services
Development, Environment and Leisure 12 July 2004
APPENDIX 1-DETAILED CONDTION SURVEY
1.1 The Green Lane range: 3 storey principal range including cart entrance; brickwork with stone detailing & painted stone entrances, under slate roof with timber gutters, metal & plastic downpipes, and timber windows, with latter steel stair and balcony access in courtyard, with single storey blockwork extension below.
· Roof-street side: slate work generally in reasonable condition, but slipped slates, lead flashings, brickwork to chimneys and “belfry”, gutters and downpipes require attention.
· Roof-courtyard side: as above.
· Elevations-street side: in reasonable condition, but poor quality and missing pointing, graffiti, spawled and eroded brickwork, slipped brick voussoirs & keystones, vegetation within brick work, water and mechanical damage to cart entrance & central pedestrian entrance, paintwork and rot to windows and missing copings to gable apex require attention. Missing brickwork to right & left of second floor gable window (see Appendix 2 image nos 3 & 4), missing brickwork to second floor arched window pier in gable (see Appendix 2 image no 6) and cracking within brickwork around windows (see Appendix 2 image no 7) require urgent attention
· Elevations-courtyard side: in reasonable condition, due to recent substantial reconstruction, but poor quality and missing pointing, spawled and eroded brickwork, loose and missing render require attention. Missing windows and missing, broken and cracked window panes (see Appendix 2 image nos 8, 9, 11 & 12) require urgent attention.
· Elevations-west gable: in reasonable condition, due to recent reconstruction, but intermediate quality and missing pointing to brickwork and verge require attention.
· Interiors: it was not generally possible to gain access, but views through windows indicated the presence of pigeon corpses and excrement, which constitute a major health hazard to those entering the building (see Appendix 2 image no 13).
1.2 The Cornish Street range: 3 storeys, in brickwork with stone detailing under slate roof with timber gutters, metal & plastic downpipes, timber and metal windows (excludes Courtyard Workshop-see para 4.5 below)
· Roof-street side: brickwork to chimneys and gutters and downpipes require attention. Slate work in poor condition, holes in roof, slipped slates and lead flashings (see Appendix 2 image nos 16 & 17) require urgent attention.
· Roof-courtyard side: as above.
· Elevations street side: in poor condition, but poor quality and missing pointing, graffiti, spawled and eroded brickwork, slipped brick voussoirs & keystones, vegetation within brick work, water and mechanical damage to cart entrance & central pedestrian entrance, paintwork and rot to timber windows and missing copings to gable apex require attention. Holes in brickwork (see Appendix 2 image no 18) and missing, windows and missing, broken and cracked window panes require urgent attention.
· Elevations-courtyard side: in poor condition, but poor quality and missing pointing, spawled and eroded brickwork, slipped brick voussoirs & keystones, vegetation within brick work, paintwork and rot to windows and missing copings to gable apex require attention. Missing windows and missing broken and cracked window panes (see Appendix 2 image nos 14 & 15) require urgent attention.
· Elevations-north gable: in reasonable condition, but poor quality and missing pointing to brickwork and verge require attention.
· Interiors: it was not generally possible to gain access, but views through windows indicated relatively significant fire damage to ground floor and parts of first floor. The presence of pigeon corpses and excrement was noted, which constitute a major health hazard to those entering the building (see Appendix 2 image no 20).
1.3 The Courtyard range (see Appendix 2 image no 21 & 22): single storey workshop in brickwork, under corrugated iron roof, with metal barge boards & gutters & plastic downpipes, with metal windows and metal sliding shutter doors (the building is not contemporary or of the same character with the Green Lane and Cornish Street ranges).
· Roof- courtyard side: in reasonable condition.
· Roof-boundary side: unable to inspect but assumed to be in reasonable condition.
· Elevations- courtyard side: in reasonable condition.
· Elevations-boundary side: unable to inspect but assumed to be in reasonable condition.
· Elevations-east gable: in reasonable condition, but missing metal barge boards and brickwork ant gable apex, poor quality and missing pointing, graffiti, spawled and eroded brickwork, vegetation within brick work, water and mechanical damage, rusted metal window and concertina door require attention.
· Elevations-south west gable: in reasonable condition, but poor quality and missing pointing, spawled and eroded brickwork, vegetation within brick work require attention.
1.4 Boundary and courtyard: the courtyard can currently only be accessed via the cart entrance, and it is protected by a 2.5 metre high stone built, gated boundary on its south western side. The courtyard is generally of brushed concrete, although setts are retained in situ under the cart entrance.
· Courtyard floorscape: in reasonable condition.
APPENDIX 2-PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES
