1

Listed Building Consent and

Change Of Use

23 & 24 St. George’s Street, Stamford

Remodelling of modern rear extensions, repair and internal alterations.

Change to use as a single dwelling.

1. Pre-Application Proposal

Following an on site meeting with Kerry Walmsley on Thursday, 7 January a pre-application

proposal was submitted to South Kesteven District Council on Tuesday, 12 January. The

proposal submitted (S15/3443/PRE) is at Appendix 1.

2. Response to pre-application proposal

A prompt response was received by email on 14 January 2016. This is at Appendix 2.

3. Revised proposal

The revised layout is at Appendix 3 and takes into account all the comments made by Kerry

in her email of 14 January 2016. This revised proposal minimises the loss of historic fabric,

provides an effective layout for a single residential dwelling and focuses on what is most

important about the building.

3.1 Further assessment and investigation

Since taking ownership of the properties on 29 February 2016 we have made a further careful

assessment as requested and compiled an evidence base to support our proposals and assist

with decisions about the proposed alterations.

This assessment shows that there have been many phases of alterations. Alterations since

the late 19th century in particular have been damaging to what would at one time have been

a beautiful building. It is thought that there have been two main phases of unsympathetic

alterations:

i) c 1880

• Groundlooroffrontrangedivided.Newstaircaseinstalledandasupportingwallinstalledwhich divides the room asymmetrically.

• Facadeof23changed-doornarrowed,andmullionsrenewedpossiblyataroundthistime• Largeoakbeamaboveinglenookincuttotakeabakehouseoven(probablyearlier-possibly

around 1840).

• Oakloorjoistsremovedandpinejoistsinstalledunderbedroom1.• Pineloorboardsinstalledinsomeareas.Onthelandingandbedroom2thesehavebeenlaidontopoforiginalloorboardswhicharenowinapoorstateofrepairorinadangerouscondition.

ii) c 1978

• Concreterenderhasbeenappliedtomostoftheinternalgroundloorwalls,andsomeirstloorwallsdisguisingsomeirreparabledamage.Removingthisandothermoderninisheshas revealed some damage to the historic fabric. For example large stone quoins marking the

original rear entrance to the hall have been cut with an angle grinder to tie in a 1970/80s brick

wall.

• Stonewallspointedwithmoderncementmortar.• Bituminousrooingfeltinstalled.

2

• CollywestonremovedfromfrontrangeandreplacedwithWelshslate.• Windowsinfrontelevationchanged.• Originalstaircaseremoved• Partialconcreteloorinrearrangeof24hasblockedall airlowcausingcompletedecayofthe19thcenturytimber loorhiddenbeneath1970sloorboards.• Originalceilingsremovedandboardedwithplasterboard and Artex.

• Plasterboardpartitionwallsinstalledcompromisingspacesandinbedroom2visuallydividingthe space and line of sight of the main structural beams.

• Unsympatheticlatroofextensionsfurtherextended.

Nevertheless, several exciting discoveries have been made:

- Alargeinglenookireplaceinthefrontrangeof23withinillsatvariousstages- Asmallireplaceinbedroom1withabrickarchandlancetform- Thedeinitivelocationoftheoriginalstaircase- Clear evidence that the existing staircase and partition wall between 23 and 24 were late

additions and that the original 17th century form of the front range would have been much

more coherent.

- Ainestoneentrancetotherearofthefrontrange.

The revised proposal now presented takes into account all of the points made by Kerry in her

email response at Appendix 2.

3.2 Revision in response to points made by Kerry

Internal alterations to bring the two buildings into one dwelling (door within the rear range):

(Italics in quotes below are Kerry’s notes)

“In terms of linking the two buildings, I suggest that you opt for existing openings in the irst instance. There appears to be a notch of an existing opening, to the north of the entrance hall of No.23. The archaeological building record for S15/0641 indicates that this opening was the location of the original staircase. I advise that you undertake some research to establish:-

a) If this is an existing opening

b) The impact of revealing this opening. At irst loor level the archaeological building record for S15/0641 and S15/0642 identiies an earlier straw and daub wall and this may continue at ground loor level.

If the research indicates that this option is not possible due either the impact upon fabric or your intended plan form, I would then opt for an alternative location for the opening. On this basis, the opening that you have proposed within the 19th century range to the rear is acceptable, subject to all other options being discounted.”

Investigations proved that the notch in 23 was recently sealed by modern blockwork. In fact the whole wall on the 23 side is modern blockwork. An earlier c1880?, poorly constructed, rubble wall on the 24 side is of limited value therefore it is proposed that the two buildings are linked here instead of the rear range as Kerry has suggested.

Removal of late 20th century partitions:

“I have no objection to the removal of 20th century partitions, these are of minimal signiicance and their removal will help to re- establish the original plan form of the rooms. This is subject to suficient justiication within your archaeological building record, verifying that the walls are of no historic signiicance.”

MOLAconirmedthatthedividingwallinbedroom1isplasterboard.Investigationsprovedthatthis and the partition walls in bedroom 3 were plasterboard.

3

Repositioning existing staircase:

“I have some concerns in relation to the removal of the staircase, as I fear moving it will undermine its structural stability and take it away from its original context. Additionally, we will need to consult Historic England in relation to this alteration and if there view is contrary to ours the application will need to be determined by the secretary of state. I would recommend therefore that you retain the existing staircase and opt to erect a new staircase in the hall of No.23 as previously approved.”

As suggested, the revised proposal retains the existing staircase as well as introducing a staircase in to the position previously approved. In the longer term we would like to remove the existing staircase as we feel it is of little historic importance and detracts from the more important architectural features of the building as it would have been in the 17th century (and earlier).

Replacement irst and second loor windows in rear elevation“I have no objections to replacing the irst and second loor windows on the rear elevation with hardwood double glazed windows, subject to design and detail and attach our windows position statement for your information.””

Details have been submitted with this proposal at Appendix 3.

Replacement of post 1970s leaded glass with handmade glass panels

“I have no objection to this subject to putting forward evidence gathered indicating the design/materials of the window prior to the 1970s. Please refer to the windows position statement.”

Details have been submitted at Appendix 3.

Installation of new bathroom in the rear range

“I have no objection to a new bathroom in the rear range however any downpipes/rainwater goods for plumbing will need to be identiied on your rear elevation drawings as part of any listed building consent application.”

Noplumbingforthenewbathroomwillbevisibleontherearelevation.Afanwillhoweverbeneeded and details of this are at Appendix 3.

Installation of two en suite bathrooms

“In order to establish an en-suite for bedroom 1 this will involve the partial removal of a substantial chimney stack of 17th century origin. The need for an en-suite on this occasion does not justify the harm to the listed building and therefore I am not able support this.”

“It was not clear at the time of the pre application proposal that any historic fabric was present since there are voids both above and below the area in question. Investigations have proved thatthereisasecondireplacehiddeninthesideofthemainstack,thereforetherevisedproposal does not include a second en suite.

Install two new door openings at irst loor level to provide access to bed-rooms affected improved layout and re-siting of stairs:

“I have some concerns in relation to the partial removal of what appear to be original walls linking bedroom 3 to the bathroom however this may be acceptable, if it can be suficiently justiied that there are no alternative options in terms of achieving the plan form for a single dwelling. I am unable to support the opening at irst loor level (to bedroom 1 from the landing) as this will involve removal of earlier straw and daub walls as identiied in the archaeological building record and suggest that you look at alternative options.”

The revised proposal now only includes one opening within one wall. (Illustrated right. The door would be in the right of this wall)

This is between bedroom 3 and the landing and is in the later 19th century range.

Re-siting of early 20th century door to replace recent replacements wherever possible.

“I have no objection to this, as long as any existing doors of historic value dating from 1948, are retained; in situ for those of particular signiicance or retained on site/re-hung to alternate locations for those of less signiicance.”

Any doors removed will be retained and re sited.

4

Other points

“Retention of two reed and lime partition walls , repaired with consistent materials.

Repairs on a strictly like for like basis can be undertaken without consent.

Removal of cement based pointing and repointing in lime mortar. This will not require consent subject to using hand tools only for removal of cement mortar.

All other like for like repairs can be undertaken without consent however stone cleaning will require listed building consent. Mechanical stone cleaning in most cases is not necessary and can damage the stone/brick work. If you are seriously considering stone cleaning I would suggest that you research the ‘Torc’ or ‘Doff’ system which uses an air vortex to clean the face of the masonry that does not harm any fabric.

The alterations to the roof will be covered in the planning application for change of use. I welcome any changes to the roof to improve its current design which detracts from the historic character of the frontage buildings. I would also welcome a reduction in the footprint of the existing ground loor extension, as per approved plans but understand that this is not your intention in this instance.”

Reed and lime partition walls at either side of the landing will be repaired in consistent materials.

The process of like for like repair is now underway avoiding the use of modern materials unsympathetic to the original structure. Some of these repairs are urgent, for example, the roof is leaking badly in at least three places, and at least two main structural beams need to be replaced or extensively strengthened.

Stone cleaning will use the Torc or Doff system.

Theroofwillrepaired.Ourintentionistoremovethebituminousrooingfeltonthefrontrange,install a breathable insulating membrane to make the space more usable and protect vulnerable roof timbers.

Thefootprintoftheexistinggroundloorextensionwillbereducedslightlyasrequested

3.3 Summary

Ourproposalstherefore(asdocumentedinAppendix3)indicateverylittleinthewayofdemolition or interference with the historic structure. We now only propose two structural

alterations to the older building.

1 Oneopeningbetween23and24intherearrange.

2 Demolitionofthepoorlyconstructedpartitionwallonthegroundloorofthefrontrange,andbuilding a new wall in the likely position of the original screen.

The remaining work, to the old parts of the building, involve repair, renovation and restoration

faithful to the original building. Much of this work is the removal of modern materials, such as

concreteandplasterinisheswhicharecausingproblemstotheoriginalfabric,particularlydamp,and improvements to the rear elevation by the installation of new windows in a consistent style.

We also propose to demolish the rear 1970s extension and replace it with a more sympathetic

construction.

Additionally there are a number of issues relating to preservation of older features which need to

be discussed on site.

Wewouldseekclariicationinanumberofareas.Forexample,wherepartsofanoldreedandlimeceilingarecoveringoldjoiststhatmayneedtoberepaired,andwherethereisevidenceof two reed and lime ceilings built at different times. We would need to ask if it’s sensible to

dispense with the later ceiling and repair the earlier one.

In our view, the most important parts of the building are the 17th century structure of the front

range,andweneedtodecidewhatistobepreservedwherethereisaconlictbetweenfeaturesfrom different eras.

1

Pre Application Advice:

Listed Building Consent and

Change Of Use

23 & 24 St. George’s Street, Stamford

Re-roofing and remodelling of modern rear extensions, and internal alterations.

Change to use as a single dwelling.

1.Existing front

elevation

Looking north west.

No 23 is the ground

loor of the building on the left. No 24 beyond comprises the ground

loor of the rendered building together with the irst and second loors of both buildings. Both are now unoccupied.

2. Postcard

from 1910

Looking south down to

St George’s Square.The two men on the

right are at the door of no 23.

Appendix 1Pre Application Advice Document (originally submitted 7 January 2016)

2

Fig 1. Block plan of the area

Location plan 1:1250 @ A3

Buildings on three sides overlook the property:

Retail stores’ rear walls

Funeral director

Aerial view

Location plan 1:200 @ A3

Nos 23 & 24 St George’s Street

1.0 Site Location plan

3

2.0 History of building

23and24StGeorge’sStreetwasatonetimeasingledwelling.

The building has developed in several stages:

• A front rangeparalleltothestreet.Largely17thcenturysurroundinganearliertimberframe.See listing in “A survey by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in 1977 “ at Annex A.

The reference to the timber frame surviving on the rear wall may only be partly true. A shadow

oftimberframingcanbeseenontherearwalloftheirstrangebutonlyatirstloorlevelaboveNo23.Therearwallattheotherendofthebuildingisstonewithnoevidenceofatimberframetherefore the framing may have been removed when the buildings were cased in stone. The

front elevation of the roof is Welsh slate and the rear elevation is Collyweston. The hall was

probablyoriginallybuiltwithairstloorroomabovethecrosspassageandserviceroomsinNo23.Itislikelythattheirstloorroomwouldhavebeenaccessedfromastaircaseattherearofthe cross passage1.Theremainderofthebuildingwaslooredthroughinidenticalmaterialsata later stage (possibly the 17th century)2.Thereareseveralireplacesinthefrontrangeallofuncertain date. (The current listing is also at Annex A).

• A rear rangeparalleltotheirstwasaddedpossiblyintwostagesintheearly19thcentury.Thissecondrangeincludesoneandpossiblytwosimplebeamandjoistcellars.Thisrangeisbuiltinstonealthoughpartoftherearwallisredbrickpossiblywherethebuildingjoinedthebakehouse(seebelow).Theroof(bothelevations)iscollyweston.Onlyoneireplacesurvivesintherearrange-thisisacornertypeonthegroundloorof23.

• Outbuildings around a rear courtyard. 19th century maps show several buildings which

have since been demolished. A map of 1833 shows a small building backing on to the rear

range. This may have been a bakehouse constructed from red brick. A red brick chimney

survives above the modern extension 3.

• Modern rear extensions, built in the 1970s

• Many internal 20th century alterations to the two main ranges.

The following are likely to be early 20th century :

- stairstoirstloorandpartitionwallsupportingstairs(orlate19thcentury)- loorbricksintherearlobbyofno23- many of the internal doors

- one or two windows on the rear elevation.

- re-rooingofwholebuilding4

Original front range

Later rear range

Modern extension

St G

eorg

e’s

Str

eet

4

The following are likely to be 1970s and later:

- bathroomittings- glazing in the windows on the front elevation5,

- remaining doors

- remainingirstloorwindowsintherearelevation- majorityofceilinginishes(Artex)- someloorinishes(quarrytiles,chipboard,woodlaminate)- thecreationofaGothicarchesaroundthedoor/windowintheexistingdiningroomofno24andcornerireplace,removalofireplaceindiningroom(externalchimneyexists)

- partitionwallsinirstloorbedroomsof24- partitionwallsinshopareaofNo23- decorativeinishes(woodchipwallpaper)

Itislikelythatthebuildingwasphysicallydividedatbothgroundandirstloorlevelafterthebuild-

ingofthesecondrange.Howeveratsomelaterstagethebarrierwasremovedatirstloorlevel.The whole building was probably owned as a single freehold until the late 19th century, with sepa-

rate tenancies . Subsequently, the building was divided into two separate freeholds. At the present

time,No23comprisesjustthegroundloorofthesouthernendofthebuilding.No24comprisesthegroundloorofthenorthendofthebuildingplustheentireirstandsecondloorsandtheentire garden. It is known that a builder purchased at least part of the building in 1970, built a new

extensionandcarriedoutothermodiications.Thecurrentownerpurchasedthefreeholdof24in1981andthefreeholdofNo23in1990returningtheentirebuildingtosingleownership.

Fromthe19thcenturypartofthebuildingwasusedasashop,initiallyasabakerandlourdealer, later as a butcher’s shop and most recently as a travel agent. It is likely that the part

usedasashoppremiseshaschangedovertime.Thebakerandlourdealerprobably,forexample,usedthewholeof23;thegroundloorasashop,theirstloorasalourstoreandthenowdemolishedoutbuildingasabakehouse.Onceitbecomeabutchersshopin1870itispossiblethattheirstloorareawasnolongerrequiredthereforetheirstloorbarriermayhave been removed at this time and the original staircase taken out. It is known that the butcher

continued to use the outbuilding as a smokehouse (assumed to be the building previously used

as a bakehouse). The premises stopped being used as a butcher’s shop in 1970 therefore it is

likely that the bakehouse was demolished at this time.

AplanoftheexistinglayoutisatAnnexBandC.

3.0 Amendments to previous approvals

Consents were granted in August 2015 by South Kesteven District Council (reference S15/0641/

FUL).Thisincluded:• Changeofusefrommixeduseretail(classA1)andresidential(classC3)totworesidential

dwelling houses (class C3)

• DemolitionofrearextensionsasatAnnexC• NewextensionsandinternalalterationsasatAnnexBandAnnexD

The amendments to the approvals are now sought for:

• Changeofusefrommixeduseretail(classA1)andresidential(classC3)toasingleresidential dwelling house (class C3)

• AlterationstorearextensionsontheexistingfootprintasatAnnexB,CandE• InternalalterationsasatAnnexB,CandE.

Change of use

Permission has already been granted for change of use from A1/C3 to C3. The approval was for

two C3 dwellings. We are now seeking approval to change this from two to a single dwelling.

5

Alterations to rear extensions

Permission has already been granted to demolish the existing extensions and build two new exten-

sions to the rear of the two dwellings proposed.

We are now seeking approval to simply make changes to the existing extension by remodelling on

the existing footprint. The existing roof and visible elevations are extremely ugly and the interiors

are dingy. See Illustrations 2.

The proposed remodeling comprises:

- complete removal of existing roof

- replace roof with new including a large lantern roof with high performance glass

- incorporate box gutters to improve roof drainage

- replace all windows and doors in all visible elevations with large sliding/ or multifold high

performance glass doors

- remove all internal partitions

- incorporate any surviving structures from bakehouse oven

- high performance glass throughout for safety and energy conservation

The remodelled area will provide:

- alargeairylightilledmodernkitchen/sitting/diningroom,aseparatestudyandcloakroom.- a visually appealing structure along the lines of Illustrations 3. The transparency and contrast will

be more sympathetic to the historic parts of the building

- the main living space in the home therefore presenting less risk and impact on the historic part of

the building

- retention of a single courtyard garden providing a pleasant aspect from the remodelled space

rather than division into two very small gardens

Internal alterations to remainder of building

PermissionhasalreadybeengrantedtomakechangesasperAnnexB,CandD.Wearenowseek-

ingtomakechangesasalsoincludedinAnnexB,CandE.

Ourproposalincludes:• repositioningofexistingstaircasetothepositionapprovedforanewstaircaseandremovalof20th

century partition wall supporting existing stairs.

• removaloflate20thcenturypartitionsontheirstloor• replacementofallirstandsecondloorwindowsintherearelevationwithnewbespokehardwood

double glazed windows of a consistent style to be agreed. Possible style is shown in Illustrations

3.

• replacementofthepost1970sglassinthefrontelevationwithhand-madeglasspanels.• removalofall1970schangesandinishesandreinstatementwithmoreappropriatematerialseg

lime plaster, breathable paints

• installationofanewbathroomintherearrange• completerefurbishmentoftheexistingbathroomtoprovidetwoensuitebathrooms• installonenewdooropeninginthestone(orpossiblybrick)wallintherearrange(thisisthemore

recent of the two ranges) to provide access between 23 and 24.

• installtwonewdooropeningsatirstloorleveltoprovideaccesstobedroomsaffectedbyimproved layout and re-siting of stairs

• re-sitingofearly20thcenturydoorstoreplacerecentreplacementswhereverpossible.• retentionofthetworeedandlimepartitionwallsintheproperty,repairedwithconsistentmaterials• removalofcementbasedpointingandrepointingexposedstoneworkwithlimemortar• repairofallhistorictimber• roofrepairs• chimneyrepairs• gutterrepairs• cleaningandrepairofexternalstoneworkwherenecessary

6

4.0 Access

The access to the buildings will be unchanged. The main door will be the door currently used

by 23 and the other door will be a side access to the garden as probably originally intended.

The change of use from shop (A1) to dwelling house (C3) has already been approved and will

reduce the amount of local parking required.

5.0 Heritage Impact Assessment

ThebuildingisGradeIIlistedandsitsintheheartoftheStamfordConservationAreaontheedge of the Danish burgh and in an area populated by many buildings of medieval, 17th and

18th century origin.

Thehistoricsigniicancerelatesto:

The front elevation

This is attractive and in keeping with other nearby buildings and the streetscape in this historic

area.Novisiblechangesareproposed.

The range fronting the street

This is 17th century with possibly some earlier elements. It was almost certainly one house

based on an early plan.

Few changes are proposed to this part of the building. The following is an assessment of the

impact of each:

- re-sitingoftheexistingstaircase.FollowinganinvestigationbytheMuseumofLondonArchaeologicalServicesanArchaeologicalBuildingRecordingReportwassubmittedinJune1015.SKDCapprovedtheinsertionofanewstaircaseintoNo23intheareawhereanoriginal staircase may have been. We propose to keep the existing late 19th/ 20th century

staircase from 24 and move it to this agreed position. See Illustrations 4 (Staircase).

- removal of two 20th century partitions in 24 will return the integrity of the two main spaces.

The partitions split the rooms longitudinally and asymmetrically. Also, three main structural

beamsarevisibleatbothirstloorandgroundloorlevelinaneast/westdirectiontoform4 bays. The partitions are an ugly later addition and divide the view of the beams/bays in a

north/south direction. A redundant Victorian/Edwardian door resulting from this change will be

re-sited elsewhere in the building. See Illustrations 4 (Partitions)

- removalofrecentpartitionsandinisheswhicharecompletelyoutofkeeping.SeeIllustrations4(Partitions)andIllustrations4(Moderninishesandittingstoberemoved)

- additionofdooropeningsinto19thcenturypartitions.Onehasalreadybeenapproved.Another is necessary following re-siting of staircase. The impact will be minimised by

repairing a much larger section of wall. See Illustrations 4 (Sites of proposed new openings)

Any new information will be taken into account as works progress.

The range at the rear of the building

Perhapsslightlylesssigniicantisthelaterparallelrangefurthestfromthestreet.Thisisasimplestone/brickbuildingwithsuspendedwoodenloors(partchipboard,partloorboardswithasmallareawithyellowloorbricks),onecornerireplaceandonesmallcellarofsimpledesign. Few changes are proposed. The following is an assessment of the impact of each:

- newdooropeningingroundloorstone/bricknonstructuralpartitionwalltoallowaccessbetween the existing retail unit and the front reception. This change is essential to create a

single dwelling. (Illustrations 4 (Sites of proposed openings)

7

- newdooropeninginirstloornonstructuralpartitionwall(possiblystone/brick).Thisisessential to allow access to bedroom 2 following changes brought about by removal of

partition and creation of bedroom 1 as an undivided space.

- removal of modern partitions in bedroom to create bedroom 2 See Illustrations 4 (Partitions).

- introduction of partition to create bathroom

- replacement windows . There are six windows, one may be Victorian but in a dilapidated

state. The others are modern, one is uvpc. They are all of different sizes and present an

extremelyuglyviewontherearelevation.Thewindowsareofnomerit.Neverthelessitisproposed to commission six replacement high quality bespoke windows as per the design of

the Victorian window.

The rear extensions

Theselatroofedextensionsareofnohistoricsigniicanceapartfromtheredbrickchimneywhich may have been part of a 19th century bread oven. These extensions cannot be seen

from any public view, and indeed are surrounded by massive, monolithic walls of Tesco and

Wilkinson. See Illustrations 2. The enhancement of the extension should be supported.

6.0 Summary

In summary, the change of use to C3 has already been approved . The change to a single

dwelling will return these buildings to their original use and will reduce burden on the local

infrastructure further.

The amended proposals submitted here for internal alterations to the historic parts of the

buildingareconsideredtobeinconsequentialcomparedtothemajorbeneitsproposedbythescheme.

TheBuildingArchaeologicalReportpreviouslysubmittedmentionedtheremovalofsomefeatures, necessary to complete the layout as proposed but these were considered to be

inconsequential compared to the overall scheme. The changes proposed were approved. These

amendments propose further minor changes including the removal of various modern additions.

There is always a balance to be struck between a sympathetic reinstatement and the loss of

fabric and it is considered that, in this instance, the reinstatement of the property to a single unit

with the staircase located where proposed (it being the only sensible solution), will result in a

positive impact upon the architectural character of the building, outweighing any damage to the

older fabric.

Theexistingextensionswhichareofnosigniicancetothelistedbuilding.Itisconsideredthattheworkstosigniicantlyimprovethemwillhaveapositiveimpactuponthecharacterofthebuildings.

8

Illustrations

1. Buildings around the garden

On the West side, the bottom of the garden viewed from outside and inside the existing French window

The garden is very enclosed and surrounded on all sides by very tall buildings. The rebuilding of the roof will have no detrimental impact to the surrounding properties.

On the North side

On the South, also showing possible bakehouse chimney

9

2. Existing lat roof extension - internal and external

10

3. Proposed style of remodelled extension

11

4. Details of areas where changes are proposed

The pictures below show the site approved for the reinstatement of the staircase at irst loor level and at ground loor level.

The staircase

This shows the existing staircase which we propose moving to the location above.

12

These show the modern partition walls that we propose to remove.

Partitions

A The wall between the snug and the rear hall.

B The wall dissecting bedroom 1.

C The wall dissecting the front reception/staircase wall that is necessary to move when the staircase is relocated.

D Partitions in bedroom 2

E Partitions in study 2

A

B

D

C

E

13

Opening A has been approved, but we propose an opening at B also, to create an opening into bedroom 1.

The proposed site of the opening between the rear reception and the hall.A is viewed from the Hall and B from the Reception. (The labels show the actual site of the proposed opening.)

Sites of proposed new openings

A

A

B

B

14

Modern inishes and ittings to be removed

Artex ceilings, wood chip wallpaper, modern doors, plastic windows,

stonewallspointedwithcement,70sbathroomittings

15

Annex A

Entry in A survey by the Royal Commission of Historical Monuments 1977

“St.George’sStreet(Fig.143) This street seems never to have been occupied by

menofmorethanaverageafluence,andconsequentlycontains rather small houses. These date from the

Middle Ages onwards.

(308)House,Nos.23–24(Plate83),twostoreys,class7, originated as a timber-framed building, the rear

wall of which survives. It was cased in stone early in

the 17th century; a two-storey mullioned bay window

was then added to the hall which has a chimney stack

backing against a cross passage.”

Entry in Historic England Listing

ListentryNumber:1360417Location:23AND24,STGEORGE’SSTREETDateirstlisted:22-May-1954Date of most recent amendment: 26-Apr-1974

UID:1936391.1671STGEORGE’SSTREET(WestSide)Nos.23and 24 (Formerly listed

underStGeorge’sSquare)TF03071/17122.5.54.IIGV2. Partly rubble,

partlystone,butallofearlydate,somewhataltered,No23 is coursed rubble.

Welshslateroof.Moderndoor.OneC19shopwindow.OtherwindowshaveC19glazing,onebeingof3lights.No24hasaCl9splayed bay, rendered

stone, with 9-light windows to each storey with moulded

stone mullions, under

gabled capped label. Plain door.

Nos23to28(consec)formagroup.ListingNGR:TF0318807178NationalGridReference:TF0319207181 Plate 83 from Royal Commission survey document

16

Annex B: Elevations - existing, approved and proposed amendments

Existing elevations

Existing East elevation Existing West elevation

Existing North elevation

Approved elevations

Approved North elevation

Approved West elevationApproved East elevation

17

Proposed amended elevations

Proposed amended East elevation Proposed amended West elevation

Proposed amended North elevation

18

23 St George’s Street 24 St George’s Street

Ground Floor

Modern extension

New proposal is to keep the same footprint, but remove the central partition wall to create an enlarged kitchen dining area and replace the lat roof with a lantern.

Although permission has been given to demolish them, we would like to adapt the modern stone walls, on the existing layout to take in larger widows and multifolding doors .

Original buildings

To bring the two properties together,

we would like to ind some way of connecting the rooms,

maybe on previously knocked through

openings.

Annex C -Demolition schedules, approved and proposed amendments

Shop

Ofice

Store

WC

WC

Kitchen

Living room

Dining room

Kitchen

Utility room

Shower

& WC

19

23 St George’s Street 24 St George’s Street

First Floor

Second Floor (Attic room over original range)

No changes

First loorWe would like to reorganise the layout by taking out mainly modern stud and plasterboard walls, but also investigating the possibility of removing some remaining old chimney breast.

Approved demolition

Approved demolition of modern lat roof

Proposed further demolition

23/24 St George’s Street, Stamford

Proposed Demolition Schedule

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

20

Annex D - Approved layout

21

22

23 St George’s Street 24 St George’s Street

Ground Floor

Modern extension

New proposal is to keep the same footprint, but remove the central partition wall to create an enlarged kitchen dining area and replace the lat roof with a lantern.

Kitchen/dining/sitting room

Study 1

Study 2 Front reception

Rear reception

WC

Snug

Annex E - Proposed amended layout

23

23 St George’s Street 24 St George’s Street

First Floor

Second Floor

23/24 St George’s Street, Stamford

Proposed amended layout

Main points

1. Combine the single dwelling and retail unit into a single dwelling2. Create a single kitchen/dining area with a new lantern roof, to

replace the existing ugly lat roof.3. To ind some way of bringing rooms in the old part of the building

together

3. To reorganise rooms on the irst loor, demolish modern partitions and create 4 larger rooms with en-suites

Bedroom 1

Bedroom 3

Bedroom 2

Bedroom 5

Bedroom 4

En suite

En suite

Bathroom

24

Footnotes

1 "MedievalEnglishTown-HousePlans"byW.A.PANTINidentiiesthearrangementofhallandservice rooms with a cross (or screens) passage and a solar or chamber above, parallel to the

streetasatypicalpatternofconstruction.Wherethereisairstloorroom,stairsmaybeinvarious locations, but in smaller town buildings internal stairs were usually in a corner next to a

ireplace,ornexttoascreenspassage.Thelatterwouldbeconsistentwiththelayoutin23/24.2.TheMOLAreportreferstothedifferencesinloorboardsbetweentheirstloorboardsinthe

north and the south sides of the building. They also refer to the fact that there are earlier boards

andjoistsunderthe23irstloor.Theirstloorboardsonthenorthsideare30mmthickandappeartobesimilartotheboardsinthesecondloorofthesideofthebuildingabove23.Theirstloorboardsabove23aremorerecentandare20cmthick.Itisproposedthatthesequenceof events may have been :

• pre17th:century:solarbuiltabove23,remainingnorthsideofbuildingopen.Theseare theboardsandjoistsfoundhiddenundertheloor

• 17thcentury:northsidelooredoverandlooraddedtosecondloortogetherwithstairsto secondloor

• 19thcentury:solarroomboardscoveredover3. 1833 and 1886 maps show a range of buildings around the garden. It shows a small building

adjacenttothewestelevationatthesouthendofthebuilding.Thismayhavebeenthebakehouse.

4.Rooingfeltisunderboththeroofsofthefrontandrearrangessuggestingre-rooinginthetwentiethcentury.

5. A photo of the building in 1970 by the Royal

Commission on Historical Monuments (see front page)

shows that the windows have single panels. They now

have leaded panels. The change probably occurred

when a lorry crashed in to the building (see photo right).

Furthermore, the windows in 23 have been changed, for

example the 1920s photo of the building shows that the

windows to both the side of the door and above it were

non-mullioned whereas now they are.

25

Walmsley in response to Pre Application Proposal

From: Kerry Walmsley <K.Walmsley@southkesteven.gov.uk>Date:14January2016at15:32:14GMTTo:ChrisMcLeod<chrisconkers@btinternet.com>Subject:S15/3443/PRE-23&24StGeorgesStreet,Stamford

Dear Chris,

S15/3443/PRE-23&24StGeorgesStreet,Stamford–Alterationstolistedbuildingandchange of use from Retail (A1) to Residential (C3)

Many thanks for submitting the information in relation to the above preliminary enquiry.

Ihavenoobjectiontotheprincipleofbringingthetwopropertiestogethertoformonedwelling,subjecttodevisinganapproachthatdoesnotcompromisethecharacterofthelistedbuilding.BasedontheplanssubmittedIhavesomeinitialconcernsinrelationtolossofhistoricfabricrequired in order to achieve your desired plan form.

Essential to drawing up a scheme that achieves your requirements whilst causing minimal impact to the character of the building is to gain an understanding of what is important about the building, as well as its history including its various phases. This will provide a sound evidence base upon which we can make decisions about the proposed alterations. Although an archaeological building record has previously been undertaken, this is in relation to different proposals, therefore, a new assessment will be required for any listed building consent application.

I have consulted with my planning colleagues and as the change of use ref: S15/0641 has not been implemented you will need to submit a planning application (Change of use) from Retail (Class A1) to residential (C3). The principle of the change of use has already been established, butapositivedeterminationwillbesubjecttogainingthenecessarylistedbuildingconsent.

Please see my response to each proposal in turn:-

Internal alterations to bring the two buildings into one dwelling (door within the rear range):

Intermsoflinkingthetwobuildings,Isuggestthatyouoptforexistingopeningsintheirstinstance. There appears to be a notch of an existing opening, to the north of the entrance hall ofNo.23.ThearchaeologicalbuildingrecordforS15/0641indicatesthatthisopeningwasthelocation of the original staircase. I advise that you undertake some research to establish:-

a) If this is an existing openingb) Theimpactofrevealingthisopening.AtirstloorlevelthearchaeologicalbuildingrecordforS15/0641andS15/0642identiiesanearlierstrawanddaubwallandthismaycontinueatgroundloorlevel.

If the research indicates that this option is not possible due either the impact upon fabric or your intendedplanform,Iwouldthenoptforanalternativelocationfortheopening.Onthisbasis,the opening that you have proposed within the 19th century range to the rear is acceptable, subjecttoallotheroptionsbeingdiscounted.

Removal of late 20th century partitions:

Ihavenoobjectiontotheremovalof20thcenturypartitions,theseareofminimalsigniicanceandtheirremovalwillhelptore-establishtheoriginalplanformoftherooms.Thisissubjecttosuficientjustiicationwithinyourarchaeologicalbuildingrecord,verifyingthatthewallsareofnohistoricsigniicance.

Repositioning existing staircase:

I have some concerns in relation to the removal of the staircase, as I fear moving it will undermine its structural stability and take it away from its original context. Additionally, we will need to consult Historic England in relation to this alteration and if there view is contrary to ours the application will need to be determined by the secretary of state. I would recommend therefore that you retain the existing staircase and opt to erect a new staircase in the hall of No.23aspreviouslyapproved.

26

Replacement irst and second loor windows in rear elevationIhavenoobjectionstoreplacingtheirstandsecondloorwindowsontherearelevationwithhardwooddoubleglazedwindows,subjecttodesignanddetailandattachourwindowspositionstatement for your information.

Replacement of post 1970s leaded glass with handmade glass panels

Ihavenoobjectiontothissubjecttoputtingforwardevidencegatheredindicatingthedesign/materials of the window prior to the 1970s. Please refer to the windows position statement.

Installation of new bathroom in the rear range

Ihavenoobjectiontoanewbathroomintherearrangehoweveranydownpipes/rainwatergoodsforplumbingwillneedtobeidentiiedonyourrearelevationdrawingsaspartofanylisted building consent application.

Installation of two en suite bathrooms

In order to establish an en suite for bedroom 1 this will involve the partial removal of a substantial chimney stack of 17th century origin. The need for an en suite on this occasion does notjustifytheharmtothelistedbuildingandthereforeIamnotablesupportthis.

Installtwonewdooropeningsatirstloorleveltoprovideaccesstobedroomsaffectedimproved layout and re-siting of stairs:

I have some concerns in relation to the partial removal of what appear to be original walls linking bedroom3tothebathroomhoweverthismaybeacceptable,ifitcanbesuficientlyjustiiedthat there are no alternative options in terms of achieving the plan form for a single dwelling. I amunabletosupporttheopeningatirstloorlevelasthiswillinvolveremovalofearlierstrawanddaubwallsasidentiiedinthearchaeologicalbuildingrecordandsuggestthatyoulookatalternative options.

Re-siting of early 20th century door to replace recent replacements wher-ever possible.

Ihavenoobjectiontothis,aslongasanyexistingdoorsofhistoricvaluedatingfrom1948,areretained;insituforthoseofparticularsigniicanceorretainedonsite/re-hungtoalternatelocationsforthoseoflesssigniicance.

Retention of two reed and lime partition walls , repaired with consistent materials.

Repairs on a strictly like for like basis can be undertaken without consent.

Removal of cement based pointing and repointing in lime mortar

Thiswillnotrequireconsentsubjecttousinghandtoolsonlyforremovalofcementmortar.

All other like for like repairs can be undertaken without consent however stone cleaning will require listed building consent. Mechanical stone cleaning in most cases is not necessary and can damage the stone/brick work. If you are seriously considering stone cleaning I would suggest that you research the ‘Torc’ or ‘Doff’ system which uses an air vortex to clean the face of the masonry that does not harm any fabric.

The alterations to the roof will be covered in the planning application for change of use. I welcome any changes to the roof to improve its current design which detracts from the historic character of the frontage buildings. I would also welcome a reduction in the footprint of the existinggroundloorextension,asperapprovedplansbutunderstandthatthisisnotyourintention in this instance. There is no fee for listed building consent however the fee for the change of use application is £385. A combined application form for planning permission (change of use) and listed building consent can be accessed via the planning portal available at http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8169

In addition to an application form and fee of £385 you will also need to submit:

· Sitelocationplan(OS1:1250or1:2500)withthesiteoutlinedinredandlandinanyother ownership outlined in blue.· Blockplanscalenotelessthan1:200showingdirectionnorth· Existing and proposed elevations at a scale of 1:50

27

Largescaledetailsofproposedwindowjoineryatascaleof1:20atleast. ArchaeologicalBuildingRecord

· Design and Access statement including Heritage Impact Assessment (I have attached some guidance for the heritage impact assessment)

If you are submitting the documents online you will need one copy of each, if you are submitting a hard copy we will require 3 copies of each.

Giventhelevelofdetailrequiredfortheapplicationitmaybebeneicialforyoutoconsultwithan architect or heritage consultant who are experienced in dealing with applications relating to listedbuildingsandarecharteredwiththeInstituteofHistoricBuildingConservation(IHBC).They will also be able to assist in developing a plan form that meets your requirements whilst not compromising the special interest of the listed building.

Although every care has been taken in preparing the above informal advice, it is not and is not intended to be a formal decision on matters raised. Decisions on matters of Development Controlcanonlybereachedformallyfollowingconsiderationofavalidstatutoryapplication.NoresponsibilityisacceptedbytheCounciloranyOficerormembershouldanyformaldecisiondiffer from the advice given.

Please get in touch if you have any further queries.

Kind regards,

Kerry WalmsleyAssistantConservationOficer

South Kesteven District CouncilCouncilOfices,St.Peter’sHill

Grantham,Lincolnshire,NG316PZTel: 01476 406080Email: k.walmsley@southkesteven.gov.ukwww.southkesteven.gov.uk

28

Appendix 3Revised Proposals March 2016

(To be added by Ross Thain)