I am the Chairman of Palmerston Residents Association (the ‘Association’), an organisation which endeavours to represent the interests of and work for the good of the people living in the area in and around Sydenham in East Belfast. The Association is involved in many projects which it hopes will improve the Sydenham area and benefit it in the long-term. The Association is not a legal entity.
I first notified the Department of the Environment / Northern Ireland Environment Agency (the ‘Challenged Party’ or ‘CP’), of our interest in having properties at 2 & 4 Station Road, Sydenham, Belfast, BT4 1RE, (the ‘subject properties’), listed in and around October 2007; I mentioned in e-mail correspondence at this time my knowledge of the connection between the subject properties and Mr Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, co-founder of Harland & Wolff shipyards and former MP for the East Belfast constituency.
Around 3 months passed and I had heard nothing further from the CP and therefore was becoming anxious that any action was not being taken expeditiously as the properties were in my belief in risk of demolition. I sent a further e-mail in January 2008 to Mr Kirby at the CP, again enquiring of their position in relation to the subject properties and raising my concerns that the properties may be subjected to demolition and therefore requesting that ‘spot-listing’ be considered by them. In response to this e-mail of same date, Mr Kirby advised that the Senior Conservation Architect would be viewing the subject properties the following day. Copies of the e-mail correspondence referred to in this statement are attached hereto.
I also sent a letter to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, dated 27th January 2008, in which I canvassed for the support of the Senior Ministers in protecting the subject properties, not least because of the perceived risk of demolition. I made clear therein my belief that the properties were worthy of protection because of their historic links to Mr Gustav Wilhelm Wolff. A response to this letter from the Office of First and Deputy First Minister was received, dated 31st January 2008, stating that the previously mentioned letter had been passed to the CP.
A substantial response from the CP in relation to my letter dated 27th January 2008 was received, dated 20th February 2008. The response noted the issues raised by me in respect of the subject properties, in particular it references my plea that the buildings be “saved from destruction” “because of their historical connection with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff and because holding onto this part of our history would sit very well with the Titanic Quarter’”. The letter explained that the matter would be considered in due course by Mr Manus Deery, Principal Architect, who would decide whether the properties were worthy of being ‘spot listed’.
The next item of correspondence which I received was a letter from Mr Manus Deery, dated 28th March 2008, advising that the CP was in the process of inspecting and gathering information on the subject properties to determine if same would meet the legislative test for listing. I am aware the subject properties were indeed ‘spot listed’ in and around the 17th July 2008.
After hearing that the subject properties had been demolished in and around January 2009, but in advance of hearing of the CP’s decision, I contacted my local MLA, Councillor Naomi Long regarding the matter. I am aware that Cllr Long wrote to Councillor Sammy Wilson MP MLA, Minister of the Environment. In Cllr Long’s letter to Cllr Wilson, Cllr Long posed a number of questions:
1. Cllr Long pointed out that it appeared “bizarre” that “at a time when the Northern Ireland Executive and Belfast City Council are investing in a new Titanic Signature project to promote the City’s links with that famous vessel...that authentic heritage directly linked to the shipyard is permitted to be demolished.”
2. Whether a formal decision not to list the subject properties was taken and if so, the rationale for this.
3. Conversely to 2, whether the BPNs were allowed to lapse, permitting the subject properties to be demolished.
A fellow-member of the Association then received a letter from the CP dated 12th February 2009. This letter advised that a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) was issued by the CP on each of the subject properties on 17th July 2008, affording both properties protection for a period of 6 months. (up to and including 16th January 2009). The letter advised that the CP:
“considered all of the available evidence, consultations and representations and concluded that the buildings did not meet the test of Article 42 of the Planning Order 1991 [as amended] i.e. that they did not meet the test of “special architectural or historic interest” required for permanent protection as listed buildings.”
The CP then explained its decision in view of the fact that a BPN was initially served upon the owners of the subject properties:
“The substantive difference between the initial and final decision by the Department was the establishment that the buildings were not as unusual and rare as initially thought.....in our view an argument that they were of special architectural interest could not be sustained”.
I understand that this view was based on the fact that one of the subject properties had had its Victorian-style interior added in the late Twentieth century whilst the other property’s interior had been completely modernised. ‘External changes’ to the property were also mentioned and in the CP’s view this contributed to the decision reached by them.
The letter also addressed my arguments that the buildings should have been protected by reason of their historical association with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff. The CP acknowledges that their own research confirmed the information which had been provided by me and the Association:
“The structures were indeed part of his now gone estate known as ‘the Den’. However....though of interest, this was not sufficient grounds upon which to protect the buildings. It did not make the buildings objects of special historical interest”.
To explain this decision, the CP made reference to Annex C of Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) which states that:
“in the case of historical associations, there will generally need to be some additional quality or interest in the fabric of the building itself to justify listing. Either the building will have architectural merit in itself or it should be well preserved in a form which directly reveals its historical associations....[for example] because of the survival of
certain particular features.....”.
In addition, Cllr Wilson responded to Cllr Long’s letter above, and in response thereto made the following points:
1. A decision not to list the subject properties was taken in advance of the expiration of the BPNs.
2. As per the reasons outlined above in the correspondence from the CP to the Querist dated 12th February 2009, the CP concluded that the subject properties were not of special architectural interest.
3. The Minister acknowledged the historic interest in the subject properties by reason of their association with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, however he comments that the association though of interest was not of sufficient ‘weight’ to justify listing. The Minister refers as his Department did to PPS6, Annex C, which is as stated above. The Minister concludes that as the subject properties had been altered since Wolff’s time, historic associations were not directly revealed and therefore the subject properties were not eligible for listing.
Both myself and the Association and many of the local residents in our area are deeply aggrieved by the decision taken by the CP in respect of the subject properties. Having sought legal advice, I am not satisfied that their decision was correct. I wish to seek redress, by way of Judicial Review, to challenge their decision and have same publicly declared erroneous by a Court of law. Hopefully if we are successful this would ensure the future of other historic properties which will not suffer the same fate as a result of poor decision making by the public body in question.
