Thank you for your interest in this story
To continue reading this article, subscribe to the Stray Ferret for as little as £1 a week
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
18
Dec
Government boost for Ripon Cathedral annexe
Historic England has given its support to Ripon Cathedral’s amended plans to build on Minster Gardens.
The non-departmental public body has told North Yorkshire Council, which will decide whether to allow the £8 million scheme, that it supports the revised plans.
Historic England is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to protect the historic environment.
Its backing comes a week after Ripon City Council rejected the plans at a packed meeting that led to allegations of “cowardice” by councillors.
Mike Collins, team leader for development advice, said:
Historic England continues to support the application on heritage grounds. However, we still have concerns regarding the ability, from the current submitted information, to understand appropriately the impact of the detailed architectural approach and material choice of the proposal. We therefore request further information, in the form of further realistic architectural representations, to allow definitive advice in this area.
Mr Collins says the “overall impact on the historic environment is likely to overall be a neutral one” and adds the council should consider the “wider public benefits which could accrue from this proposal” as well as “the need to put Ripon Cathedral onto a sustainable financial footing”.
The cathedral has warned it could introduce an entrance fee if the project is rejected.
Ripon, Historic England says, is “a place of exceptionally rich heritage significance”. Regarding the cathedral, it says:
Rather than stridently dominating the city, it blends wonderfully with the surrounding townscape, with its west front considered to be one of the finest examples of early English architecture.
The loss of trees, include a veteran beech, has been one of the most contentious aspects of the scheme. Historic England says:
The presence of trees on this site, including a veteran tree, is a part of the character of the townscape which makes up the conservation area. What is important here is the blend of built townscape and trees is important in views from and to the centre of the city and reflects its location as a hub in a rural hinterland. However, some of the tree cover unfortunately restricts key views of the cathedral, and of the surrounding heritage assets.
An architect's perspective of Minster Road and the proposed annexe building. More detailed plans have been requested.
‘Beggars belief’
The cathedral wants to build a two-storey standalone building, which would include a song school for choristers, cafe, gift shop, toilets and additional storage space.
So far 216 people have expressed support and 203 have objected during the council consultation. Almost 3,000 people have signed a petition to save the trees in Minster Gardens.
The public's views, along with those of statutory consultees such as Historic England and the city council, will be considered by North Yorkshire Council when making a decision.
Responding to Historic England’s submission, a spokesperson for the Save Our Trees campaign group said:
It beggars belief that a national public body like Historic England should make a judgement as a consultee supporting these plans, where they openly acknowledge that their decision is not a fully informed one, as the submitted plans are lacking the necessary detail.
They added Historic England’s position “contrasts sharply with the recently published objections from the Woodland Trust, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, the Yorkshire Gardens Trust, Ripon City Council and Ripon Civic Society”.
Richard Taylor and David Winpenny, co-chairs of the civic society, said in their newly published objection:
We have never disagreed with the cathedral’s view that a new annexe on the north side of the cathedral would contribute to the sustainable future of the cathedral and enhance the city of Ripon but the siting in Kirkgate Park/Minster Gardens remains unacceptable.
We contend that, instead, a quality building occupying the stonemasons yard could be successfully designed so as to relate positively to the cathedral and its users. We were hopeful that, having had nearly two years to consider the many objections and to redesign and relocate the proposed annexe, the cathedral authorities would have arrived at an acceptable solution. We are very disappointed that this is not the case.
1