In common with your other contributors, we too had no satisfaction from the Local Government Ombudsman.
We are currently placing our case before the District Auditor and are not exactly hopeful, here, either!
Peter Richardson's Story
The Manor House, Lee
The Manor House, Lee, (built 1772) has been in Local Authority ownership since 1901 and has been a public library since 1902. The building has been subject to various acts of vandalism, by said Authority (Lewisham) since then. It is about to undergo more destruction. This time, English Heritage has its sticky fingers all over the portfolio and is involved in said destruction. The Georgian Group, and Save Britain's Heritage are trying to help us.
Since 2000, Lewisham Council kindly set aside £1.75M for the refurbishment of the house. Simple, you might think. But no, not in the fantasy-world of Local Government. Read on....
First let us say that at no time were we responsible for the previous 2 schemes being withdrawn, although we opposed them root and branch. The Council took action, both times, without any reference to the local community or community groups. It is the council which is responsible for the increasing dilapidation of the building over the past 7 years. Lewisham Council and its Conservation Department have a very poor record concerning the heritage of the borough in its control. We would remind you of another Grade II* listed building in the borough, on the at risk register, Beckenham Place! But, back to the Manor House. A previous administration removed a supporting wall on the first floor. Along with no remedial attention over the last 7 years, this has resulted in a pair of support props on each of the first and library floors, to prevent collapse. This is a disgrace for a Grade II* listed building being used by the public.
The roof of the House was allowed to deteriorate badly in the nineties. When it was finally repaired it actually cost over £200,000, instead of the £80,000 originally set aside.
North view of the Manor House South view of the Manor House
During the last seven years (2002/3) much of the plaster was removed from the walls of the entrance hall by ALW (architects), in order to find footings of the original stairway, and never replaced, in spite of promises.
The Manor House staircase (a later addition)>
Where was English Heritage and its duty of care to this building, the heritage and the community in Lewisham? Where was Lewishams Conservation Dept.? Why was the Council not held to account? Why is it not being held to account? The Council has been allowed to sit on £1.75m since 2000, spending only on failed schemes. Why?
Secondly we are, and always have been, keen on disabled/infirm access. In fact, we welcomed most of this third attempt as at last heading in the right direction. We are publicly on record, in more than one area, as being in favour.
Unfortunately we are now faced with a scheme whose funding is capped. We do not know what aspects of the scheme are prioritized. We have no costings for the individual areas. We have no costings for removal of the Council's computer Hub. **We have been told that any cost overruns will impact on the library provision. There is no library-layout plan, yet. There is no cost /benefit analysis for this expensive project, which relies on borrowing to be repaid over 40 years! The business plan has not been researched and reads as if figures have been plucked from the air. There are 4 centres within 5 minutes walking distance with spaces to rent. There are 3 more within 10 minutes walk.
The English Heritage Casework Review Panel had misgivings about the lift in the entrance hall, and calls it an "important historic space". The Panel recognizes that the "proposed lift and new staircase would be visually intrusive." It will not re-establish symmetry, as they say. Extending the landing will further add to the loss of light and feeling of crampedness. The fact that changes over the past 100 years have occurred is no reason to do more damage to the look and fabric of the building. Calling the business plan likely to be profitable and favourable is naive in the extreme.
And, finally the Casework Review Panel, has actually bought the old chestnut that "the improvements to the library would be unlikely to materialize and its future could well be in doubt". Read the Council's minutes, as far back as 1936 this was an option, and is regularly reiterated. The people never allow it to be withdrawn. EH should look at the history. Even at the last local elections (2006) the Labour administration lost many councillors, the Lee Green ward is now represented by 3 Lib-Dems. In fact, with respect to the continued life of the library in the building, a publicly-circulated commitment has already been made to ensure the library will remain in the building for at least 11 years.
**If the project goes over budget there will be no improvements to the library at all. As para 6 of the letter to David Shatwell bases its decision on this very shaky, what is laughably called, a business plan, we are more than concerned that what is left of the interior and its fabric will be destroyed for nothing.
The other factor here is, if large numbers of people do rent, where are they going to park?
This has always been a problem in a restricted area, which is now a parking zone. The residents have always fought their corner for a quiet life strongly!
As far as the Building Regs are concerned all professionals involved must be aware that they allow for problems of this kind. The DDA 1995 provides that employers are not to discriminate against disabled employees, and also provides for the adaptation of premises for individual employees.
The provision is to be reasonable for the circumstance in each case. The needs to conserve special characteristics of such historic buildings must be recognized. They are a finite resource with cultural importance. In such work the aim should be to improve accessibility where and to the extent that it is practically possible, always provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the historic building or increase the risk of long-term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings. In arriving at an appropriate balance between historic building conservation and accessibility it would be appropriate.
To take into account the advice of the local authority conservation and access officers and English Heritage as well as views of local access groups, in order to make the building as accessible as possible.
Building Regulations 2000, as amended, Part M, sub-paragraph 0.19.
Particular issues relating to work in an historic building that warrant sympathetic treatment and where advice from other could, therefore be beneficial, include:
a. restoring the historic character to a building that had been subject to previous inappropriate alternatives.
b. rebuilding an historic building
c. the choice of appropriate construction materials and techniques e.g. making provisions enabling the fabric to breathe to control moisture and potential long-term decay problems
The required Access Statement, in the case of an historic building, such a statement will allow an applicant to identify the constraints imposed by the existing structure and its immediate environment and to propose compensatory measures where full access proves to be impractical or unreasonable. This will allow for an explanation to be provided and assessed in situations where a less than fully accessible route is proposed to an extension or to a building or part of a building subject to material change of use.
There is also provision, as explained in "Building Regs. Explained" Jan. 2004 Revision 7th Edition pages 537/538 on Stair lifts, stating "The case for using such a device should be argued in the Access Statement. In existing buildings, and in exceptional circumstances for new developments with particular constraints (e.g. a listed building, or an infill site in an historic town centre, where a passenger lift cannot be accommodated) a vertical lift may be considered as an alternative option to provide access for persons with impaired mobility. This will satisfy requirements M1 or M2".
We contacted several local disabled groups and disabled/infirm users. All were satisfied with being able to use the library service, experience the wonderful heritage and use the meeting rooms in the basement.
Outside of this, the chair of Lewisham Disability Coalition stated the following, "If it is technically feasible, then the entire building should be made fully accessible. This may include installing lifts etc. but there is a wealth of advice available in connection with adapting listed buildings and many examples of historic buildings where sympathetic adaptations have been made and access opened up to the whole community. There is also a duty under the DDA to make premises accessible for disabled staff and this issue needs to be taken into account in relation to the proposed development."
We refer you to the previous quotations on reasonableness, sympathetic changes and conservation of the building.
Currently what the English Heritage Casework Review Panel has agreed does not deal with the issues for the best of all concerned. Why not? What is English Heritage for?
Under the circumstances of the Casework Review Panel decision, we must ask if there is a review procedure.
The panel has ignored evidence, has ignored The Building Regulations advice, has shown no duty of care to the building and has not attempted to enforce a serious investigation of alternatives.
This reflects badly on English Heritage's attitude to this much loved building, over at least the last 7 years.
IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN HELP TO STOP THIS VANDALISM? AS ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE.
Any advice, please. Be it on Planning or any other grounds, please send your emails to peterrichardson@psow.co.uk
Peter Richardson