WFDC response to formal complaint by Stourport Civic Society
News release issued:
Formal Complaint from Stourport Civic Society
On behalf of the Stourport Civic Society, I wish to lodge a formal complaint that Wyre Forest District Council acted unlawfully in demolishing a former bakery building and wall adjoining a grade II listed building situated in a Conservation Area contrary to section 196D Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Before this act took place, the Civic Society made representations to the Council through the Conservation Officer and one of the Ward councillors asking them to reconsider the proposal and investigate other options but these were ignored.
The Council claims that it acted under s.78 Building Act 1984, although no notice under s.78(2) was served on the Council and by doing so, the Council seems to have relied upon the defence in section 196D (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They have also quoted the case of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) vs Redcar and Cleveland Council (2023).
In our view the Council was not entitled to rely on this legislation as a course of action, nor to rely on these defences and by doing so, the Council acted unlawfully for the following reasons:
- It is evident from documents supplied to us under Freedom of Information requests that the dangerous situation with this wall has been ongoing for some time, certainly since June 2024 and we have anecdotal evidence that the situation was known about even before then. Whilst we acknowledge that the wall needed attention to make it safe, we do not accept that it required urgent action under s.78. In any event, according to documents we were supplied with under FOI, the Council was not served with a Notice under s.78 Building Act 1984 nor under s.77 of that Act. There was adequate time to investigate options and act upon the report from Roger Knight and Co, dated 21st June, and to submit a planning application.
- Section 78 Building Act 1984 states: “(1 )If it appears to a local authority that—(a)a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, is in such a state, or is used to carry such loads, as to be dangerous, and(b)immediate action should be taken to remove the danger, they may take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose.” Removing the danger could also have been achieved by propping the building internally and externally until a method of repair could be effected. It did not necessitate complete demolition of the entire building and the entire wall, part of which was adjoining a grade II listed building, and the wholesale clearance of the site. The action taken was excessive in order to remove the danger
- The quoted case law, though relevant to a certain extent, does not exonerate the council from the need to have applied for planning permission. In making his decision, the judge in the quoted case said: “89. In conclusion, the situation of the local authority in a case such as the present is, therefore, very far from being absurd or unreasonable, if – as I find Parliament intended – section 78 provides it with no exemption from planning control. Like any other owner, it can seek to regularise the position regarding planning permission after the event. It can legitimately demonstrate why enforcement action would be inappropriate. If prosecuted, it can deploy the defence in section 196D. The very existence of that defence means it is unlikely that a prosecution would even be brought.”
This case is particularly disappointing because the Council had only just completed a review of Stourport’s Conservation Area Number 1, which specifically identified the state of the Old Bakery and said:
The buildings on the south side of Raven Street at the rear of 15 Bridge Street are in poor condition but are of some significance. These buildings should be retained, restored sensitively and brought back into beneficial use.
If necessary the Council can serve notices under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require the owners to protect and improve these buildings. These include a S.215 Notice, an Urgent Works Notice and a Repairs Notice.
It seems that the Council’s Conservation Officers were working to an appropriate statutory standard to safeguard Stourport’s built heritage while the Council’s Property Officers were acting in direct contravention and/or ignorance of those statutory duties, and were literally bulldozing that heritage to enable redevelopment for the Council’s financial gain and convenience.
The key issues are:
- Was this demolition so urgent that a planning application was not possible before the event;
- Was it necessary to demolish the whole building and the whole wall;
- Has the Council acted lawfully?
It is our contention that not only has the Council acted unlawfully in demolishing this building in a Conservation Area as it did not submit a planning application for this purpose, nor carry out the minimum necessary work to remove the danger, but it is also guilty of maladministration because correct legal procedures were not followed and the Council acted in a way that fell short of the standards a local authority should set and would have been expected of a private individual.
We request that this matter be fully and promptly investigated, preferably by an independent expert, and that we be informed of what action is to be taken in respect of the offences, what is being done to remedy the defective legal process and finally, what will be done to restore the demolished site.
Demolition of former bakery premises and wall at Raven Street, Stourport-on-Severn
Further to my acknowledgement of 19 December, I have now had the opportunity to look into the detail of this issue and am able to provide the following response to your complaint about the demolition of the former bakery building and adjoining wall. In summary, I have concluded that the Council took the appropriate decision to demolish the building and that it was appropriate not to submit a planning application given the circumstances of this case. In reaching my conclusion, I tested the matter against three main criteria: risk (the level of risk to public safety); the scope of works undertaken (the need to demolish the whole building) and process (demolition without prior submission of planning application). Please find below a summary of my assessment.
1.Risk - the level of risk to public safety
The Council took external specialist advice by planning consultants and a structural surveyor and input from North Worcestershire Building Control. I am satisfied that immediate demolition was justified as the structure posed an immediate significant risk to public safety. This level of risk severity was flagged up in various surveys and assessments. For example:
- Roger Knight & Co’s initial June 2024 structural report lists the numerous structural issues with the building. In summary these are:
- Missing and deteriorated roof coverings.
- Severe cracking along front elevation;
- Structural instability and risk of collapse;
- Perished materials, including joists and floor at first floor;
- Severe ivy growth throughout the remaining structure.
- The Building Control Manager stated “the protection of the public would always supersede protection of a building. We were acutely aware that site hoarding (barriers) was erected as a temporary measure and that this was being disturbed by third parties. The action to demolish was I believe, coupled with this, the likelihood of increased public attendance local to the site during planned public events”.
- Q+A Planning Consultants state “We understand that it remains the Council’s intention to bring forward a scheme for redevelopment of the site as soon as possible, but due to the imminent risk to public health and safety and subsequent road closure it was not possible to propose a replacement scheme in time for a planning application to be submitted and given full consideration by the Council at Planning Committee, within a reasonable timescale. The site would have remained a health and safety risk.”
- The alternative suggestion of propping up had been previously explored and it was concluded that this was not viable as the act of attempting to shore up could in itself have triggered collapse. The road would have, in that event, had to remain closed for a considerable but indeterminate period of time as external shoring would potentially have encroached into the street.
I also have to observe that it is easy for the Civic Society not to give sufficient weight to the risk to the public: once the Council was aware of the risk, it would have been officers of WFDC, not officers of the Civic Society, that might have faced a corporate manslaughter charge in the event of a collapse killing a pedestrian.
2. Scope of works - the need to demolish the whole building
The Council commissioned a Structural Survey, which reported very clearly that the whole building is at risk of imminent collapse. Advice from multiple parties was as follows:
- Roger Knight Building Surveyors stated in September report “the party wall near the bin store, which is integral to the structure, is not tied to any other walls or parts of the building. This lack of connect has caused significant movement in the structure, leading to severe instability. As it stands, leaving any part of the structure intact while demolishing other sections would significantly increase the risk of collapse. This presents an immediate danger to both the site and any adjoining properties….. selectively demolishing only the single-storey section of the building, would leave the two-storey part in a precarious state. The structure has already suffered extensive deterioration, with severe cracks, collapsed internal elements, and perished materials throughout. If only part of the building is removed, the remaining sections will be structurally compromised and more susceptible to collapse. From a safety perspective, complete demolition is now necessary.”
- Q+A Planning stated “Extensive pre-application discussions were held with Officers at Wyre Forest LPA regarding the site and the need to make safe and potential for future use. Taking account of the professional opinion of the structural engineer, it is clear that part demolition is not possible and immediate action to arrest further decline was required”. The decision was taken by the Council in September 2024 that the demolition works could be carried out under Section 78 of the Building Act 1984.
- DSM and an alternative contractor were not willing to take on the job if partial demolition only were specified, based on potential danger to their operatives. Quotes were therefore requested on the basis of full demolition. In the event it was self-evident that the property was beyond repair and incapable of retention and restoration, with walls collapsing immediately upon removal of ivy cover.
You make much of the heritage of the demolished building which was not listed and was sited in a conservation area. While I am not expert to judge the relative heritage value of the two buildings, I see that the Civic Society itself is proposing the demolition of a far more prominent historic but unlisted building in the conservation area as part of its proposal for the Bridge Street site. Since the latter building is owned by the Council it might have been courteous to consult us about your plans before publishing them, as the Council has already spent tens of £ thousands of public money to bring the building back into use.
3. Process – demolition without submission of a planning application
The Council took the decision to proceed with the demolition as a matter of urgency without planning consent based on a comprehensive process and body of evidence, which included surveys, reports and external specialist advice and input from a wide range of stakeholders. The process required discussions/agreement with and the involvement and co-ordination of multiple stakeholders, consultants, contractors, neighbours, Building Control, WFDC as Local Planning Authority, WCC Highways and Archaeology, Ward Councillors, and internal WFDC approvals.
Investigations, surveys and reports were commissioned in readiness for complying with the requirements for submitting a planning application, originally for partial demolition and subsequently - when it became clear that partial demolition would not be feasible - for full demolition. This was based on external specialist advice against partial demolition as the whole structure could collapse or be compromised. It became clear that the process of obtaining planning permission following ecological and archaeological recording surveys - even assuming that permission could be obtained without an alternative scheme having been designed and costed - might realistically not be concluded until well into 2025 because the application would also have to be considered by the Planning Committee. This prospect of significant delay would also have involved the building continuing to deteriorate, potentially posing an even greater risk to public safety, and the road remaining closed to vehicular access. The new scheme would then need to be fully designed and procured before the site could be reutilised.
Section 78 was relied upon for carrying out the urgent demolition, ahead of the required retrospective planning application. The fact that planning permission was required, but not obtained, before the defendant commenced demolition of the property in the 2023 case you cite did not mean the defendant acted outside the powers of section 78. There is no obligation for a notice to be served under section 78 but what is important is that it appear[ed] to a local authority that:
- a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, is in such a state, or is used to carry such loads, as to be dangerous, and
- immediate action should be taken to remove the danger
The Council acted consistently with the declaration of the court in the Samuel Smith Brewery decision.
I hope my response provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Council took the appropriate course of action within the parameters of relevant legislation to deliver the best and safest solution and value for money, given all the circumstances.