This is a substantial red brick detached residence
on the Malone Road near Bladon Drive, with red clay tile roof,
tall chimney stacks, scalloped bargeboards, terracotta panels
and a timber veranda 
.
It was designed by Henry Seaver in 1904, and had latterly been
converted into eight apartments . Although it is not listed, it
falls within the Malone conservation area declared in 2000.
McLaughlin & Harvey Construction Ltd applied for planning permission and consent to demolish in August 2000. The Department consulted Belfast City Council in October recommending refusal, which the Council accepted. An appeal against the deemed refusal was lodged in November before the decision could be issued, and it was heard in February 2001. The Society was one of three objectors to the application, and appeared at the appeal. The quotations which follow come from the report of the Commissioner, Trevor Rue, which was ratified by the Planning Appeals Commission as a whole and issued in March 2001.
As no design guide has yet been prepared for it, developers have tried to contest the status of the conservation area on the basis that no guidelines have been issued to guide them, particularly in assessing the character of the very sizeable Malone conservation area. While this is a significant omission (expected to be addressed in the near future), the crucial matter was to establish that demolition could be controlled, without which any discussion of the finer points of design was academic. Fortunately the document designating the Malone Conservation Area referred to the area's very high standard of townscape character with "many period Victorian and Edwardian properties contributing to the special quality of this suburban setting". This, together with the City Council's strong support for the designation, carried considerable weight in defining what was to be conserved.
The South Lakeland case has often been cited as support for allowing demolition in conservation areas. However its analysis that conservation areas could be preserved by "not harming" as well as by positive "preservation or enhancement" was interpreted in this case as meaning that demolition should not be allowed since the building makes "a material contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area". The commissioner amplifies this view by saying that he does not believe "material" necessarily implies "substantial, important, momentous or essential", nor does the fact of a building not being listed imply that it is not of importance to the character of the area.
It was noted that the Department had granted consent to demolish a number of buildings in the conservation area since the designation last year, taking the view that a principle of allowing redevelopment had already been established by earlier planning permissions. The applicant had cited as precedent for his own case consents for demolition and recommendations for such consent made by Planning Service since November 2000 for the demolition of 50 and 80 Marlborough Park South, 147 Malone Road, 75 Myrtlefield Park, 1 Deramore Park South, 16 Deramore Park and 97-101 Eglantine Avenue - nine buildings of character in the area condemned within a period of less than four months. In three of these cases planning permission had previously been granted for development of the sites, but the subsequent conservation area designation meant that separate permission was required for any demolitions. These permissions need not have been allowed: "The argument that equity required the Department to grant these permissions is fatuous. It is a misconception that liability for compensation would have arisen had the Department not done so".
The Commissioner was puzzled by the authorisation of such continued demolition of period buildings "in the face of the clear statutory duty set out in Article 50(5). I am not aware of any provision for compensation had the Department acted otherwise. I do not consider that this inexplicable practice should be perpetuated." The developer "could lawfully have demolished the building at any time up to 5 August 2000 but did not do so. The legal and policy context changed fundamentally on that date", and demolition should now be strictly controlled.
The Society in its evidence drew attention to the British Standard (BS 7913:1998) on "Principles of Conservation of Historic Buildings", which outlines how the initial intention of conservation area protection was to preserve the architectural character of such areas rather than the fabric of individual buildings, but that experience had demonstrated that this was not sufficient and that the character of an area is now seen to be inseparable from the physical fabric of which it is made.
The developers had paid £1.1m for the property late in 1999. If restored, they estimate its value would be only £600-700,000, and they reckon that as it stands it is only worth £400,000. This demonstrates the importance of controlling demolition in these areas if family houses are to survive, since few private individuals can afford to compete with developers, who will pay a "hope value" of perhaps 100% above the actual value.
During the weeks prior to the hearing the property was vandalised and considerable damage done to internal features. The developer argued that while it would be "technically possible" to restore the building, it would probably cost some £250,000 to replace the roof and windows, fit out bathrooms and kitchens and carry out landscaping, so that there would be "no chance of recouping the cost of acquisition". Nevertheless it was not suggested that the property in its present condition was unsaleable.
The Society had drawn attention to the problem of precedent should the building be demolished, and the commissioner considered this "highly relevant". "I am in no doubt that the successive demolition and replacement of period Victorian and Edwardian buildings would seriously prejudice the character and appearance of the Conservation Area".
The Society has also pointed to the importance of patina since the Knockdene appeal of some years ago. In this case the commissioner says that the coherence of this part of the Malone Road is "largely due to the century-old brickwork" of this and neighbouring buildings, and that what unifies their different styles is that "in the main... they are of a similar age"; hence their demolition would "represent a loss to the area as a whole."
While this judgement is very encouraging, it raises the question of what would happen if the existing building were not on the site. The commissioner was not averse to the proposals in terms of height or access requirements. However he said it was "undeniable that the proposed replacement building would not be an Edwardian building but a 21st century building with Edwardian-style features. However well executed, it would not be authentic. The brickwork and other materials... would not have the patina of age."
This decision should take some of the heat out of the local property market, and allow more families to remain in the area. However it is obviously important to ensure now that this building is restored as soon as possible rather than be allowed to deteriorate and possibly face demolition again at a later date. It may be necessary to back up this kind of decision with strong enforcement measures to prevent owners attempting unauthorised demolitions or the neglect of sound buildings in the hope of encouraging "developer's fires" or other damage to their property, but at least planners can now assume that legal demolition is not a blackmail threat that developers can hold over their heads. We should see more controlled and sensitive development as a result, and the next stage is to look at control of architectural character in the improvement and alteration of buildings in these conservation areas.
Return to News
Return to About
UAHS.