Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval of listed building consent

Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for the proposed dismantling of war memorial and relocation and reinstallation on new site.

Applicant: Mrs Katy Dagnall (Finchampstead Parish Council)

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 37 to 52.

The Committee were advised that whilst there were no updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda, additional comments and officer responses had been received in relation to this application and had been circulated to the Committee. An additional representation had also been received from the War Memorial Trust, and had been circulated to the Committee.

Ian Adnams, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ian maintained that the reasons stated by the Parish Council for relocation of the memorial were not relevant. Ian stated that the Parish Council believed that no significant improvements could be made to the current junction whilst keeping the memorial in its current location, despite a suggestion from himself which would have made the junction safer whilst keeping the memorial in its existing location. Ian added that the Parish Council claimed that the current location was unsafe for the Armistice Day parade, however the Royal British Legion Remembrance Parade Policy Update advised that a parade was not the remembrance event, and it was not uncommon to have an event which did not involve a parade on a highway. Ian stated that St James’ Church was fully accessible from the memorial hall car park via a direct footpath with no road to close or negotiate, presenting a viable and safe option. Ian commented that a survey from the Parish Council claimed 89 percent of respondents supported plans to relocate the war memorial, however it had been pointed out by others that in fact 90.1 percent of respondents were in objection to the proposals. Ian stated that the memorial was designated both as a war memorial and as a wayside cross, and to carry out its function as a wayside cross the monument was required to remain where it was currently situated. Ian commented that he had lived and worked in Finchampstead all of his life, and the monument was a historic icon of the village of which its location had been chosen by the village’s forefathers. Ian asked that the monument be left in its current location, where he felt it belonged.

Graham Jukes, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Graham stated that the key issue relating to the application was the consideration of harm, and noted that the grade two listing applied only to the memorial itself and not to its setting. Graham stated that in the war memorial’s current location the Parish Council’s legal obligation to maintain the memorial could not be fulfilled, as the site was subjected to 11,000 vehicle movements each day. Graham stated that the site was too hazardous for contractors to operate without road closures, and after careful consideration of a range of options the Parish Council concluded that the only sustainable way for the Parish Council to continue to fulfil its legal obligations was to move the monument to a setting where it fulfilled its function as a place of respect and remembrance whilst allowing for careful maintenance for years to come. Graham stated that the original location had seen vast changes to traffic since the monument was placed there after the First World War, and careful checks had revealed no original debate over where the monument was to be situated. Graham added that the site was currently extremely dangerous for people to visit, was surrounded by heavy duty high curbed stones, and the Parish Council could no longer recruit contractors to carry out works on the monument due to health and safety concerns. Graham stated that following a consultation sent to all households, parishioners supported the relocation of the monument to a safer and more accessible location. Graham stated that the aim of the Parish Council was to maintain the memorial and re-establish its purpose as a purpose for accessible remembrance and quiet contemplation which was not possible at the current location. Graham accepted that there were some residents who wished for the monument to remain at its current location for personal reasons, however he felt this was a minority of people, and asked the Committee to approve the application.

Rebecca Margetts stated that the proposal to relocate the war memorial was an emotive subject, and it was very important that any relocation decision was correct and allowed current and future residents to pay their respects. Rebecca added that the War Memorial Trust had recommended that the war memorial be kept at its current location with bollards and barriers installed to protect the memorial. Rebecca commented that she had concerns with the suggestion of bollards or barriers, and noted that the War Memorial Trust only recommended a war memorial to move where the current position would put the memorial at risk or where the location was inaccessible. Rebecca felt that both the inaccessibility and potential risk to the memorial were relevant for this war memorial, and added that any traffic calming could change the rural setting. Rebecca stated that there was only a pavement on one side of the road, and it was a great shame that the fantastic armistice service could not visit the war memorial in its current location and instead had to attend a poster of the memorial in a field. Rebecca felt that moving the memorial would future proof it, allowing future generations to pay their respects. Rebecca queried whether barriers were a possibility. Kieran Neumann, case officer, stated that barriers could possibly be achieved however they were not a part of this application.

Angus Ross commented that since he moved to the area in 1980 the traffic had significantly increased in this location. Angus added that he had never personally seen anyone visit the memorial due to its dangerous location, and felt that there was public benefit in moving the monument to a safer location to allow residents to visit and pay their respects.

Pauline Jorgensen stated that she was genuinely torn on this application, in part as the memorial’s setting was formed from the overall setting and the view over the water. Pauline felt that this setting would have been selected by people directly affected by World War One, and she was very reluctant to see it moved to a more convenient location.

Chris Bowring queried what evidence was there with regards to how the current location was originally chosen. Kieran Neumann stated that there was not much specific evidence, and the only comments that could be found were in relation to the picturesque location and setting. Kieran added that on balance, the future proofing of the war memorial overrode the current setting of the war memorial.

Sam Akhtar sought clarity with regards to comments that there were two opposing consultation documents, with one showing overwhelming support for the relocation and another showing overwhelming objections. Kieran Neumann stated that the results of the consultation conducted by the Parish Council had no bearing on the scheme. Kieran added that this application was to consider the impact of moving the listed building itself.

Gary Cowan commented that the memorial cross was moved in Arborfield due to works on the roundabout, and very similar points were raised by the War Memorial Trust. Gary added that the project was carried out successfully, and the new location along the side of the roundabout allowed for benches to be installed which now attracted residents to be able to sit down and reflect. In relation to this application, Gary was of the opinion that whilst the current location was appealing it was not protected from the 11,000 daily vehicle movements, whilst any bollards or traffic lights would urbanise the area. Gary added that should the application be approved, the key was to reduce the risk to the fabric of the war memorial, and should it be left at its current location it was at risk of damage from road vehicles. Should the war memorial be moved, Gary commented that he would like to see a condition protecting the monument at its future location from damage by trees.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that as one of the three veterans on the Committee she felt that the proposal was the best option as it would allow current and future residents to pay their respects in safety.

Stephen Conway commented that the conditions that pertained in 1920 no longer existed, and added that the Parish Council now found it difficult to procure a maintenance team to take care of the memorial. Stephen commented that the current location was far from ideal for residents to visit and pay their respects.

Bill Soane stated that he was part of a group of people who raised funds to install a new war memorial in Woodley five years ago, which was sited within the Woodley memorial grounds. Bill added that this memorial now attracted between 200 and 250 people on Remembrance Day who could not attend before, whilst people often sat on the benches nearby to quietly reflect.

Marcia Head, Head of Development Management, stated that this application was to consider the planning merits of what harm would be caused to the building should it be relocated. Marcia stated that any considerations relating to protecting the monument from trees and roots, should it be relocated, would be considered under application number 213927.

RESOLVED That application number 213903 be approved, subject to conditions and informative as set out in agenda pages 38 to 39.