For an FAQ about the Old Bridge car park application, click here.
See also our main Grammar School page.
What is proposed? | How do I view the plans and comment? | What is planned for the Grammar School building? | What is planned for the back yard? | How much might the new buildings cost? | How is the new house compatible with the educational covenant on the site? | How will parking be affected in the area? | What do the plans say about demolishing listed buildings? | Does the application contravene the town's Local Plan? | Does the application correctly mention adjacent trees? | What will the effects be on the conservation area? | How much of the view from the walls will be affected? | Do we object to everything in the proposal? | Are we NIMBYs? | Has the application been approved? | Who is behind the application? | What's this about a men's shed? | What groups and individuals are involved? | Do other communities value their historic military huts?
What is proposed?The Berwick Youth Project have acquired the 18th century Grammar School (most recently a Community Centre) at 5, Palace Street East, Berwick-upon-Tweed. The plan is to provide accommodation for disadvantaged young people, and build a house and large garage/storage/motor workshop block in the back yard. The house - acknowledged to have less than normal market value because of its proximity to the Youth Project buildings and activities - is intended to fund the garage block development.
How do I view the plans and comment?Please click on these two references: 21/02293/LBC and 21/02292/FUL. They are two parts of the same application - Listed Building Consent (LBC) and full application (FUL) - and any comments need to be copied pasted to both parts. You will need to create an account and log in before you can add a new comment under "Comments". You may add as many comments as you wish and they will be collated.
What is planned for the Grammar School building?The building is to be divided into a number of flats for young people awaiting more permanent accommodation, plus a caretaker's flat. A small garden will be provided for the residents (missing the opportunity to give them more of the space in the back yard).
What is planned for the back yard?In the back yard behind the wall that you can see from the paths, the plan is first to demolish the World War I Army hut and the corrugated iron classroom made by Speirs & Co. Both are Grade II* listed due to their age and being within the curtilage of the Grade II* listed Grammar School. Then the plan is to build an L-shaped house and garden at the east side behind the wall, and a massive garage block (6.4m/21ft high and 22m/72ft long) against the south side of the site, abutting the gardens along The Avenue. There will also be a number of parking spaces in front of the garage block. The garage block, with four bays and a kitchen, is to house canoes, equipment and a bicycle workshop, with an upper floor of rooms for training. The size of the garage block is unnecessarily increased by the proposal for one of the bays to be used by the Silver Foxes Motorcycle Club as a motor workshop/men's shed. This usage is no longer permitted by the Planning Officer, but the size of the building remains the same.
New buildings, north elevations, with 5' 10" figure
How much might the new buildings cost?The house is intended to fund the garage block. A local builder estimates the cost of building a single-storey house at a minimum of £2,500 per square metre; the required high standard of finish, including stone facing, would probably add to this. However, we will use a lower cost of £2,200 to avoid any danger of exaggeration.
So at 205 square metres (from the Planning Officer’s Report), the cost for the 2-bedroom house would work out at £451,000, at a conservative estimate. By comparison, the average price for 3-bedroom houses in the nearby Governor’s Gardens is estimated at £340,000 by Zoopla.
The garage block would cost £2,000 per square metre minimum – possibly more when taking into account the upper half-storey. Therefore with a footprint of 186 square meters (from the Planning Officer’s Report), the garage block would cost £372,000 at minimum.
Demolishing and disposing of the huts would cost around £10,000 each or £20,000 for both.
The total minimum cost is therefore estimated at £843,000 for the yard development. Due to the restricted access at the site, moving materials in and out would add further to these costs. The figure above also does not include hard-standing, landscaping, solar panels, battery, an energy control system, an allowance for risk, and an allowance for inflation over the period covered by the phasing condition.
How is the new house compatible with the educational covenant on the site?Good question. The house is apparently to be sold on the open market.
How will parking be affected in the area?Adversely - in order for an SUV and trailer to turn in and out of the lane to the back yard, it's being suggested that most of the permit spaces opposite the Grammar School in Palace Street East should be removed. This, combined with the increased pressure on parking from the massive development opposite the Grammar School, is very bad news for residents.
What do the plans say about demolishing listed buildings?Nothing. The application is incorrectly filled out, answering 'No' to the question 'Does the proposal include the partial or total demolition of a listed building?' But since the huts predate 1948 and are in the curtilage of a listed building, they are protected by the listing. So if the main building should be refurbished, so should the historic huts. The architect's original Heritage Statement says nothing about the huts, and the latest version of it (revision C) tries to downplay the listing. Similarly, it seems to be assumed that the archway over the entrance to the yard is 'not listed', which again is unlikely to be true. All the responses on the planning portal have flowed from this incorrect application, tarnishing the process.
Does the application contravene the town's Local Plan?Yes, very much so. Developers in Berwick are obliged to follow the Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Local Plan (April 1999) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 for conservation areas, including reusing old buildings where possible. The Local Plan says:
POLICY F24 Within Conservation Areas, consent to demolish a building or buildings will be permitted, provided that:
i) the building or buildings do not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and, (ii) a contract for the carrying out of the works for redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Where the building does make a substantial contribution to the character or appearance of the area, consent will be granted provided that: (iii) (a) all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain existing uses and find alternative viable uses including ownership under charitable or community uses and these efforts have failed; or, (b) redevelopment would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively outweigh the loss resulting from demolition. The partial demolition of such a building will be permitted provided that its overall contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area is not adversely affected.
Although the applicant argues that the demolition of the huts will be no loss, this view is not shared by the local community and those connected with heritage organisations within Berwick, such as Major Lance Thornton of the Kings Own Scottish Borderers Association. Army huts (and other historic huts) also valued by many across the country, as illustrated by the ‘Great War Huts’ project. The application makes no attempt to imagine renovated huts, only viewing them as untidy structures to be cleared away. Indeed, the application’s original Heritage Statement does not even mention the huts, while the latest version (revision C) dimiss them as temporary and uninteresting. And yet, the huts are unusual, have been part of the conservation area’s landscape for over a hundred years, and can indeed be reused. Once renovated, they will make ‘a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area’ – both on their own merit and by allowing the open character of this part of the conservation area to be retained.
Does the application correctly mention adjacent trees?No. Again, we believe the application is incorrectly filled out, answering 'No' to the question 'Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?' Clearly, there are trees very close by on the Walls and in the gardens on The Avenue that should have prompted a 'Yes' response, and subsequent survey.
What will the effects be on the conservation area?The Northumberland County Council Conservation Officer ('Built Heritage and Design') assigned to this case states that there will be harm to the conservation area. (Due to the planning application being incorrectly filled out, the Conservation Officer was not aware of the listing protection of the huts in the yard.)
The last World War I hut in Berwick - and further afield - will be lost, as will the corrugated iron Speirs classroom.
The view from the walls towards Ness Street will largely be blocked by the two new buildings, and so the enjoyment of this peaceful, beautiful section of the Town Walls will be ruined. Given that much tourist and grant income is due to the rare Town Walls themselves, this shows a breathtaking lack of sensitivity.
There will be considerable carbon costs incurred by the new buildings, compared with renovating and adding to what's already there, which is much more in keeping with current conservation and ecological thinking.
There will be an impact on landscape and ecological habitats. The lower Ravensdowne, Palace Street and Ness Street area is of unique ecological value with many mature native trees, a colony of bats that can be seen regularly flitting over the walls and back garden all around the proposed site. This area is also is a nesting site for Swifts and House Martins - both these birds are now RED LISTED species. This proposed build fails to address greener landscaping as required of modern planning applications, by law.
The height of the new buildings will impair light and cause loss of amenity for neighbouring houses and gardens.
How much of the view from the walls will be affected?The Civic Society says: "Some objectors have expressed concern that the development might block views towards the Town Hall from the Town Walls; this does not seem to be the case as the rooflines of the two new houses are lower than the historic buildings at the front of the site." This depends on where you're standing. The Town Walls at this point have different levels and approaches to the site in question. If approaching towards the north past The Retreat (the red brick building), your view to Ness Street and the Grammar School will largely be blocked. You can tell that from the following picture:
You can see the top of the army hut - the house and garage block would be over twice this height, and they extend along much of the boundary of the site adjacent to The Avenue, so you will see a big block cutting out most of the Ness Street view. This utterly compromises the view.
Now look at the banner at the top of this page. In front of the ivy-clad house, you'll see a telegraph pole. The height of the new buildings extends approximately to the top of this pole. Now imagine a big garage block 72 feet long with an L-shaped house very close to it, both extending to the top of the pole. How much of the view would be left? The buildings don't have to completely block the view to ruin it.
Looking in the opposite direction, southwards, where now you see the houses at the back of The Avenue, you will in future see the massive garage block and house. Looking over the wall at King's Mount, you will clearly see these modern buildings where once you saw The Avenue and parts of the Grammar School.
Why do this, when you could continue to use and add low-impact structures on the present scale?
Do we object to everything in the proposal?No, our complaints are mainly about the plans in the back yard, although we have some concerns about the quality of the main building renovation, especially windows and the face of the building. Detailed complaints from various respondents can be seen on the planning portal.
Are we NIMBYs?Naturally we are sad to lose part of the views from our houses. But more important is the detrimental effect on this incredibly sensitive part of the Town Walls, and the loss of irreplaceable old buildings. So everyone who loves Berwick, now and in the future, will be affected. We cannot let the charms of this unique town be chipped away - more than ever, we must preserve our irreplaceable heritage. We would be amenable to a sympathetic development that properly respected the conservation area and Town Walls.
Has the application been approved?Yes, the North Northumberland Local Area Council approved the plan on 19th January 2023 in Alnwick. The decision was resiled in order to give the huts extra interim protection, and the application was approved again on March 23rd, 2023.
Who is behind the application?Officially, it's the Berwick Youth Project. But this really means Mr John Bell, who has done sterling work setting up the BYP 27 years ago and building a reputation for helping the disadvantaged youths of Berwick. Nevertheless, there is dismay in the Ness area because of what we see as the overreach of this development.
What's this about a men's shed?This has now effectively been scotched as the Planning Officer has added a condition that any motor workshop must be used by residents of the main building, not another organisation. The MOTOR WORKSHOP label has been removed from the latest version of the plans, but the building has not been shrunk to reflect the removal of this aspect.
What groups and individuals are involved?The Berwick Youth Project, principally Mr John Bell.
The architect Ninette Edwards.
The Northumberland County Council Planning Department, case officer Jon Sharp. He has recommended acceptance, including demolition of the huts.
The Northumberland County Council Built Heritage and Design Officer assigned to this case (Eleanor Scott) states that there will be harm to the conservation area. (Due to the planning application being incorrectly filled out, the Officer was not aware of the listing protection of the huts in the yard and was happy with their destruction.) Documents on portal: CONSERVATION and BUILDING CONSERVATION. After further consideration, she still doesn't consider the buildings to be important enough to save. Obviously, we fundamentally disagree with her.
Northumberland County Council archaeologist: found insufficient information provided when asked to comment (Documents: NCC ARCHAEOLOGY and ARCHAEOLOGY (3)), before the investigations of The Archaeological Practice Ltd. (Document: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT).
The Berwick Town Council. They did not originally object to or comment on the application, but are reconsidering in the light of public concern. Document on portal: TOWN COUNCIL
Berwick Civic Society. Supports the application: "Contemporary buildings can be very appropriate for Conservation Areas." The principles outlined on their site include pledges to "Oppose any demolition or major alteration to a listed building" and to "Oppose any development within the Conservation Areas, which by virtue of its scale, height or massiveness is not in keeping with other buildings in the area." See also our rebuttal to their assertion that the view from the wall won't be blocked. Document on portal: BERWICK CIVIL SOCIETY and the update SUPPORT COMMENT
Update 1: the Civic Society now acknowledge that the Speirs classroom might be reused, but do not want the Army hut to be preserved in situ. Reasons for this are thought to be as follows (with our comments):
1. It doesn't have a sufficient military connection to warrant interest on that account, having come from Blyth. The hut is identical to ones that stood in Parade in Berwick, and Berwick's military history is of huge local interest.
2. It was only ever meant as a temporary building. See also: The Architectural Heritage Fund is pleased to have been able to contribute to the cost of conservation surveys and external urgent fabric repairs of the Ukrainian Chapel. "It is a truly remarkable survival dating from the Second World War – a prefabricated hut built of corrugated metal and asbestos sheeting – intended as a very temporary structure."
3. Not all examples of interesting architecture will survive. That shouldn't give us carte blanche to destroy what we have.
4. The original listing doesn't specifically mention the huts. Buildings within the curtilage are now protected, regardless of whether they were mentioned in the listing.
5. The relevant authorities didn't kick up a fuss about them, so why should we? We understand that conservation issues are now being revisited at county council level.
6. The BYP have compromised on the main building, for example on the front elevation render, so that will have to do, as the older building is more important. The use of the huts as pawns in a game of compromise does not seem warranted.
Update 2: the Civic Society has outlined their latest position on the planning portal, advocating for the preservation of the Speirs hut, but perhaps moving it. As for the Army hut: "The hut is timber-framed and clad in weatherboard. It has no military connection to Berwick. It is of historic interest but there does not appear to be a strong case to keep it in its current location. If there was a willingness to preserve the hut and if funds were available, it could be relocated to the Woodhorn Museum, for example." This is a step in the right direction, but we believe that much of the historic signficance is in their use by the Grammar School and breaking this connection would harm Berwick's heritage and the conservation area. Please leave the huts where they are and supplement them with low-impact buildings, as befits this very sensitive site.
Berwick Conservation Area Advisory Group (CAAG). Objects, and outlines how conservation of the main building should be improved, but (at the time of writing) CAAG is thought to accept the developments in the back yard including demolition of the listed buildings as the price for achieving other concessions. (Update: some members of the committee are sympathetic to hut preservation.) Documents on portal: BERWICK CAAG and BERWICK CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY GROUP
Historic England, Rosa Teira Paz, Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas. She was unhappy with various aspects of the development, although again, she was probably unaware of the intention to destroy listed buildings. Document on portal: HISTORIC ENGLAND.
Highways Development Management, Northumberland County Council. Expresses concerns. Documents on portal: HIGHWAYS DM and HIGHWAYS DM (2), (3) and (4)
Environmental Protection Office, Northumberland County Council. Objects on various grounds. Document on portal: PUBLIC PROTECTION
Lead Local Flood Authority, Northumberland County Council. Objects due to lack of assessment. Document on portal: LLFA
Miriam Baines, Ecologist, Conservation Team, NCC. Reminder of stringent development conditions due to impact on ecology. Document on portal: NCC ECOLOGY
The Georgian Group, a National Amenity Body who by law should have been officially consulted about the development in relation to the main building, but were not. Despite this, they have submitted a document to the planning portal in which they deplore the lack of contact and recommend withdrawal of the application while the applicant submits more detail. The BYP subsequently agreed to avoid dry lining in parts of the main building.
The 20th Century Society, a National Amenity Body who by law should have been officially consulted about the development in relation to the WWI army hut, but were not. However, they have now added their objection: "The Twentieth Century Society has been notified of an application for Listed Building consent which would involve the demolition of an Armstrong Hut located in the grounds of the former Grammar School. The Armstrong Hut is an important piece of World War I engineering history and the example in the grounds of the former Berwick Grammar School is in good condition with many original features intact. It has remained in this location for more than 100 years, having been relocated from the nearby army camp at Blyth upon the cessation of war, and initially used as an extra classroom space. The Society writes to object to the proposed application and urge the applicant to reconsider the demolition of the historic hut and to pursue alternative arrangements which would preserve this important piece of early 20th century military and architectural history. There are increasingly few Armstrong huts that remain across the country, and this example is a particularly fine example in good condition. For the reasons previously outlined by the Society, we object to the proposal and recommend that the Council refuses planning permission."
The Victorian Society, a National Amenity Body who by law should have been officially consulted about the development in relation to the Speirs building, but were not. Despite this, it is hoped that they will add a note before a decision is made. UPDATE: on 16th January 2023, the Victorian Society OBJECTED to the application and recommended that the Speirs building be reused. They said: “We object to the proposed demolition of the Speirs & Co. of Glasgow hut. Commissioned in 1908 by the Governors of the Grammar School, as technical classrooms and a bike store, this hut demonstrates the changing needs of the former school and makes a positive contribution to the Berwick-upon-Tweed Conservation area. These types of educational prefabricated buildings are increasingly rare. By their nature, these types of buildings were supposed to be a temporary solution, which makes their survival worthy of note and therefore retention. Although the Victorian Society is sympathetic towards the needs of the Berwick Youth Project, we believe that the Speirs & Co. of Glasgow hut could be suitably adapted for use as a workshop. Emphasis needs to be put on the importance of reusing and recycling buildings such as this as per Historic England guidance.”
Historic Buildings and Places, a National Amenity Body who by law should have been officially consulted about the development, were only consulted in December 2022 according to the Council, a few weeks before the decision. However we have no confirmation that they received any notification.
Neighbours and other members of the public. There are now lots of firm objections on the portal making excellent points. In addition, a letter signed by 38 residents has been sent to the planning comittee.
Do other communities value their historic military huts?Yes: for example, Great War Huts at Brook Farm Camp, in Hawstead near Bury St Edmunds, is a First World War museum and visitor centre with a collection of military huts.
Boulmer Memorial Hall is an army hut that has been restored as a community project.You can find other projects to restore military huts.