by Trevor Bevins, Local Democracy Reporting Service.
An objection to repairs planned for the main roof at Kingston Maurward House could put the project at risk.
Historic England say using a synthetic covering to stop leaks would be totally out of keeping with the historic, listed building. It insists that traditional materials should be used, which would massively increase the costs.
If Dorset Council go against its objection the final decision on the roof covering is likely to be made by the Secretary of State.
An extra layer of synthetic roofing material has been chosen by the agricultural college, now part of Coastland College, as a cheaper option for re-roofing the 18th century former manor house.
Historic England is also critical of what is currently in place claiming that is also out of keeping with the Grade 1 listed building – although none of the roof can be seen from the ground.
The college has applied for planning consent to Dorset Council to remove the existing coping stones and other features and then reinstated them once a new membrane has been fitted.
According to the application parapets, gutters and other rainwater goods will be repaired, or replaced, in a way which is said to be sympathetic to the original structure, with no changes to the roof pitch, height or structure.
In a statement to Dorset Council, which is considering the planning request, Historic England says it does not support synthetic materials on the building.
“The proposals to install an additional roofing layer of synthetic materials will have a harmful impact on the significance of the building. Historic England do not generally support the use of synthetic roof materials on Grade I listed buildings, and alternative options need to be identified,” said the organisation.
It says that the existing bitumen-covered main roof is less than ideal and to add another layer on non-original material will worsen the ‘harm’ to the building.
Said Historic England: “the use of a new synthetic material replicating lead will introduce another synthetic material to the building that further compounds the harm. It is important to recognise that changes to the roof material is not limited to visual impact, and the introduction of an inauthentic roof material will also have a harmful impact on the historic, evidential, and aesthetic qualities of the building. It is unclear why the failing bitumen felt roof will be retained beneath the new surface; there is potential harm to the roof structure if any underlying problems are not addressed.”
Said Lucy Foster, Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas for Historic England: “Synthetic materials were and are developed for use on modern buildings and are not suitable to the character of this 18th century country house. This is a high-status building that was built using high-quality materials. Synthetic plastic-based materials do not meet this high standard, and their use here would cause harm to the status and significance of the building. It is worth noting that although synthetic materials often appear to be a more economical alternative, their shorter lifespan due to their susceptibility to cracking and not being repairable, as well as being prone to adhesive failures and a consequent higher risk of water ingress, undermine the initial economic benefits. It is also important that we retain high-skilled craftspeople in the repair of historic buildings and traditional metal working skills are an important part of our cultural heritage.
Stinsford Parish Council had voted to support the College application prior to the Historic England statement.
Dorset Council’s conservation officers have supported the original college proposal although are suggesting the use of traditional materials in some areas: Said their report: “the proposed works are essential in maintaining one of the top historic sites in the country… The proposal to replace the flat roof would be vital in maintaining the building.
Upon inspection, the roof was analysed on site with the maintenance team. The roof covering was spongey, which indicated water ingress and rot. While the roof structure itself is sound, the existing covering consisted of years of patchwork repairs that have now become inadequate. While most of the building did not suffer from water ingress, some rooms had deteriorated greatly.
“The original roof would have been most likely been a flat lead roof. Considering the cost and the limited visual impact from the roof this would not be recommended…. While the edge of the roof should be finished in lead flashing, the large flat expanse to the middle can use a cheaper alternative.”
Coastland College has been asked to comment on the reaction to its proposals.
Kingston Maurward House is described in the national register of listed properties as “a fine example of a Georgian English country house. Constructed of red brick and later clad in Portland Stone ashlar the house was built in about 1717 for George Pitt, the cousin of William Pitt the Elder, and was altered in 1794 for William Morton Pitt. The interior was remodelled in the early 20th century in an 18th century style.”
The planning guidance for listed buildings says – For works affecting Grade I or II* listed buildings and developments impacting heritage sites, local planning authorities must notify Historic England and allow them to comment. Their input—typically in writing, stating objections—must be taken into account.
If Historic England formally objects to an application, then the local planning authority must refer the application to the Secretary of State for a final decision.
Historic England cannot directly refuse or halt planning applications—they can only advise.
