Protection for town's older houses to remain
Friday, 30th August 2013.
Efforts by St Edmundsbury Borough Council to save money by axing protection of some of Haverhill's older buildings were scuppered by local councillors yesterday.
Haverhill Area Working party refused a recommendation that Article 4 Directions – a conservation regulation which prevents people from changing the exterior of the homes, such as paintwork, windows or doors, without planning permission - in two areas of Haverhill should be removed.
The council wanted to axe them to save money and officer time in monitoring them, but members were not prepared to agree.
The debate was overshadowed by anger at the council’s refusal to take action over STP replacing their windows at the corner of Camps Road without planning permission.
This led to a general free-for-all criticism of St Edmundsbury's failure to stand by planning conditions imposed on development.
Cllr Tim Marks said there was a flagrant abuse of planning regulations all through the town, and described it as ‘open season’.
"There is no point in putting these conditions in if the council is not going to enforce them," he said.
The council's conservation officer, Christine Leveson, who had put forward the recommendation, admitted if it went through there would be nothing to stop owners from whitewashing their properties or painting them any colour within the conservation areas.
The areas are centred around Queen Street and the market square, running from Broad Street to Chauntry Road, and around Hamlet Road from Eden Road, Duddery Road and Mount Road to Hamlet Green.
Most of the 300 properties concerned are Victorian or Edwardian terraces.
Members heard the directions had been ineffective because of the particular socio-economic conditions prevailing in Haverhill, which meant owners could not afford to carry out restoration work.
Similar articles are being extended in Bury St Edmunds, but Ms Leveson explained they were easier to operate there because older features were still in place and just had to be protected.
In Haverhill most had gone and the aim was to try to get them re-instated through 50 per cent cost grants, but these had not been taken up.
Lack of enforcement of such planning issues as the STP one and the sale of cars at Sturmer Green had so incensed councillors that they were not prepared to sacrifice a benefit to Haverhill to save the planning department's costs.
Cllr Derek Redhead described the council's enforcement across the whole borough as 'pathetic' and said he had raised it at full council several times, that it was unfair that some had action taken against them and others were allowed to get away with it.
"You can't make out a case for the differentiations that have happened across the borough," he said. "It's wrong and it's getting the council a bad name."
No one was prepared to move the recommendation. Cllr Anne Gower suggested an amendment insisted all savings were used to enforce planning regulations in Haverhill, but no one was prepared to second that beither.
Cllr Maureen Byrne said it would mean if the council decided this was unworkable they would have agreed to axe the directions for no benefit.
Members were also unconvinced that public consultation on the issue had been done forcefully enough, as only two people had replied and seven attended drop-in sessions.
* Ms Leveson revealed she had recently visited the former Corn Exchange in Withersfield Road, a listed building, at the request of a local councillor, and was surprised at how far it had deteriorated.
"I will be in touch with the owners to try to get it protected a bit better," she said.
Cllr Paul McManus had raised the issue, describing the building as an 'eyesore' in the centre of the town.
Haverhill Area Working party refused a recommendation that Article 4 Directions – a conservation regulation which prevents people from changing the exterior of the homes, such as paintwork, windows or doors, without planning permission - in two areas of Haverhill should be removed.
The council wanted to axe them to save money and officer time in monitoring them, but members were not prepared to agree.
The debate was overshadowed by anger at the council’s refusal to take action over STP replacing their windows at the corner of Camps Road without planning permission.
This led to a general free-for-all criticism of St Edmundsbury's failure to stand by planning conditions imposed on development.
Cllr Tim Marks said there was a flagrant abuse of planning regulations all through the town, and described it as ‘open season’.
"There is no point in putting these conditions in if the council is not going to enforce them," he said.
The council's conservation officer, Christine Leveson, who had put forward the recommendation, admitted if it went through there would be nothing to stop owners from whitewashing their properties or painting them any colour within the conservation areas.
The areas are centred around Queen Street and the market square, running from Broad Street to Chauntry Road, and around Hamlet Road from Eden Road, Duddery Road and Mount Road to Hamlet Green.
Most of the 300 properties concerned are Victorian or Edwardian terraces.
Members heard the directions had been ineffective because of the particular socio-economic conditions prevailing in Haverhill, which meant owners could not afford to carry out restoration work.
Similar articles are being extended in Bury St Edmunds, but Ms Leveson explained they were easier to operate there because older features were still in place and just had to be protected.
In Haverhill most had gone and the aim was to try to get them re-instated through 50 per cent cost grants, but these had not been taken up.
Lack of enforcement of such planning issues as the STP one and the sale of cars at Sturmer Green had so incensed councillors that they were not prepared to sacrifice a benefit to Haverhill to save the planning department's costs.
Cllr Derek Redhead described the council's enforcement across the whole borough as 'pathetic' and said he had raised it at full council several times, that it was unfair that some had action taken against them and others were allowed to get away with it.
"You can't make out a case for the differentiations that have happened across the borough," he said. "It's wrong and it's getting the council a bad name."
No one was prepared to move the recommendation. Cllr Anne Gower suggested an amendment insisted all savings were used to enforce planning regulations in Haverhill, but no one was prepared to second that beither.
Cllr Maureen Byrne said it would mean if the council decided this was unworkable they would have agreed to axe the directions for no benefit.
Members were also unconvinced that public consultation on the issue had been done forcefully enough, as only two people had replied and seven attended drop-in sessions.
* Ms Leveson revealed she had recently visited the former Corn Exchange in Withersfield Road, a listed building, at the request of a local councillor, and was surprised at how far it had deteriorated.
"I will be in touch with the owners to try to get it protected a bit better," she said.
Cllr Paul McManus had raised the issue, describing the building as an 'eyesore' in the centre of the town.
Comment on this story
[board listing] [login] [register]
You must be logged in to post messages. (login now)