Agenda item

Listed building consent (LBC) for the phased partial deconstruction and demolition of the building, and required support works to stabilise remaining structure. 

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor John Pughe and Councillor Anne Lloyd Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve with conditions

 

1. 5 years
2. In accordance with the plans
3. Submit and agree a detailed methodology and a phased plan of the demolition works, to include details for securing and protecting the building prior to the commencement of the work. The details should also include a plan to restore the porch and garden along with details of salvaging materials.
4. A qualified conservation professional should be employed to supervise and agree on the methodology and demolition work as they commence, and be agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) before work commences. 
5. The LPA should agree in writing on the details of the anchor bolts or pinning anchors before they are installed.
6. Completion of the Level 3 historic building record of the Corbett Arms Hotel. Subject to structural integrity with the building made safe and secure, a photographic record of the interior should be included in this record.

 

Application for listed building consent [LBC] for the phased deconstruction and partial demolition of the building, and the maintenance works required to stabilise the remaining structure

 

a)          The Planning Manager, having received more information, highlighted that the total demolition work had reduced and that it was now only relevant to the rear part of the building. ⁠⁠

 

It was explained that the building was a former hotel, that was grade II listed, and within the Tywyn development boundary, it was a significant structure that faced Corbett Square, with a gable-end facing Maengwyn Street with further additions to the rear and the left side of the building. It was also noted that a nearby residential property and the building's gable-end were on Maengwyn Street. It was considered that the building was at risk in accordance with the Listed Buildings at Risk register, kept by Cadw.

 

The use of the building as a hotel came to an end around 2009, and there had been barely any maintenance on the building over the following years. The building was now becoming derelict, with parts of the rear of the building having collapsed in January and February 2025.

 

A structural survey report, demolition and deconstruction methodology and a Heritage Impact Assessment were submitted with the application. Reference was made to the footprint of the whole building that had been divided into 8 zones to refer to them easier. It was reported that there was an intention to demolish zones 1-5 based on the building's structural stability due to health and safety reasons following a recent collapse, with zones 2 and 4 being areas that fell in January and February 2025.

 

It was noted that the amended proposal requested listed building consent to demolish Zones 1, 2, 4 and part of Zone 5 (noted as 5A), as well as associated work to stabilise the remaining structure and secure it from the weather. ⁠It was reiterated that the existing plan represented a significant reduction in the scale of the demolition work that was originally intended, following responses to the consultation and submitting more structural information.

 

It was highlighted, when determining the application, there was a need to carefully consider whether it would be desirable to protect the listed building, its location and any features of special architectural or historic interest associated with the building, in accordance with section 96(2) of Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023. It was reiterated that preserving a building or historic asset did not mean that it had to be maintained unchanged, but that its significance was sustained for the future; the statutory duty had received considerable importance and weight when reaching the recommendation.

 

It was expressed that the proposed work would lead to losing a historic fabric within the zones noted, causing damage to the significance of the listed building. However, Members were reminded that Zones 2 and 4 had already partially collapsed, that Zone 1 included a modern conservatory of negligible heritage value, and Zone 5A had been structurally compromised and directly associated with the collapsed areas. The proposal would retain the principal elevations and the majority of the historic fabric which defined the building’s character and significance, and the damage deriving from the proposals were assessed as less than significant.

 

A national policy demands that the demolition of a listed building should be something extreme, and the decision was supported by a clear and convincing justification; made only as the last resort. The application was supported by structural review information, evidence of the recent collapses in January and February 2025, and ongoing concerns regarding structural instability and risks to public safety (especially given the location of the building adjacent to a highway). It was reiterated that monitoring data and subsequent reassessment had informed a revised approach which significantly reduced the extent of demolition and focused only on those areas that had already collapsed or were demonstrably unstable.

 

It was reported that the Authority had carefully considered whether the building could be stabilised and repaired without demolition, or whether less intervention would be sufficient. Although consultants had raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the evidence base and questioned whether the alternative options had been considered sufficiently, it was considered that the amended proposal reflected a more commensurate response that would target those elements where it was not possible to retain them without unacceptable risk. On this basis, it was concluded that the proposed work represented the minimum necessary intervention to secure the building and the "last resort" test had been satisfied.

 

The proposed work would provide clear and significant public benefits, and, in this case, it was considered that the benefits of stabilising the building, addressing safety concerns immediately by ensuring the retention of the building's main historic fabric in the long-term outweighed the damage that derived from losing impacted areas. It was reiterated, as a relevant consideration, that without intervention, a further collapse and deterioration would likely occur, leading to more significant harm, including the loss of the entire building.

 

It was acknowledged that the front porch had been removed without listed building consent and it was highlighted that there was consideration to this unauthorised work in the assessment; it would be necessary to impose a condition requiring details to restore the porch and the associated features to address the damage.

 

The officers considered that the proposal complied with the local and national planning policy and recommended approving the application with conditions.

 

b)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        He was a Chartered Structural Engineer, a full member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) and the Conservation Accreditation Register for Engineers (CARE). He was a member of the National Trust's expert advisory panel, a consulting engineers director for the Mann Williams company and he had over 30 years of experience of assessing, caring for and repairing historic buildings.

·        He had provided structural conservation advice to SAVE Britains Heritage in relation to the Corbett Arms, and that he spoke on behalf of SAVE.

·        He had worked on many listed buildings in different repair conditions and fully acknowledged the challenges facing the Corbett Arms. The challenges were not unusual and they could be addressed. The building could be saved and secured.

·        Although SAVE supported the proposed proposal with conditions, they felt that the conditions were open to interpretation, and therefore a more comprehensive explanation was required to ensure that the conditions were robust and sufficient.

·        Attention was drawn to the condition that noted that a professional should be employed who was qualified in conservation to submit and agree a detailed methodology and gradual plan of the demolition work, to include details to secure and protect the building prior to commencing the work.

He noted that professional bodies had qualifications and accreditation schemes that focused on historic building work. For engineers, the qualification was CARE, which was administered by IStructE, ICE and Engineers Ireland. It was suggested that the existing consultants in this case had 'equivalent' experience - this remained to be a matter of controversial opinion. It was assumed that the condition made it a requirement for CARE registered engineers to be employed by the applicant to satisfy the detailed methodology requirements associated with engineering. The wording should be explained 'suitably' to avoid ambiguity, confusion or misunderstanding and it was essential to impose a condition that a CARE registered engineer was employed.

·        He welcomed that the proposed conditions required detailed methodology and a gradual plan for the demolition work, and to submit and agree on details to secure and protect the building prior to commencing the work. The details should also include a plan to restore the porch and garden within the wall, as well as details of salvaging materials.

·        However, he questioned how any methodology could be assessed for approval when the applicant continued to refuse access for independent scrutiny. Appropriate checks to the methodology should be checked to ensure that it was only the least necessary work that occurred.

·        SAVE was trying to protect the Corbett Arms Hotel.

·        There was support for the application for essential restricted dismantling based on a better explanation of the robust commitment from the applicant to repair and secure the building.

·        Acting on behalf of SAVE, he had tried to engage constructively and productively with the Council's consultants, acknowledging that immediate action was required to secure the building.

·        That applications to gain access to review the building had been refused time after time by the applicant and any suggestions proposed to the consultants had been refused. Refusing to engage or allow access ruled out reasonable scrutiny.

·        He noted that the porch and garden within the wall had been removed without listed building consent and therefore, he welcomed that conditions required it to be fully restored. However, there was suspicion that removing these elements had been necessary, and no evidence was submitted to justify the unauthorised work.

·        Providing the details of the restoration would be considered a reasonable condition to approve the existing application.

 

c)               Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations;

·     The building and the current situation of having scaffolding around the site created disturbance to the town's residents.

·     Traffic diversions on narrow roads created chaos in the town centre.

·     Local businesses, including the cinema and the laundrette, were losing revenue.

·     With falling debris, the property had to be secured, the cottages next door to the building had to be secured and the public had to be protected. The area of the site had to be made safe and avoid a situation that would go from bad to worse - this was the priority.

·     Although scaffolding had been up for 12 months, the town's residents understood that safety was essential.

·     Had gained access to the building with the Police and the Fire Service, the damage was significant. Water damage had made some parts very unstable.

·     The property's owner was unknown.

·     The building was beautiful and iconic - the property was full of good memories

·     There was a need for care during the demolition work - request for constant updates and photos.

·     No probate, therefore who would pay for the reconstruction?

 

ch)       The approval of the application was proposed and seconded 

 

d)               It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit.

 

The proposal was discussed, highlighting that visiting the site would be a valuable opportunity for all Members to see the impact that the building in its current form was having on the town's infrastructure and businesses, and to get a better explanation of the situation; what value would demolishing parts of the building have on the situation and what other possibilities could be considered.

 

In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Department noted that the details of the application were based on evidence from structural engineers and experts. He explained that the application was unusual, because a situation had arisen where the Council had to step in and take responsibility for the building to ensure the safety of the public. Despite accepting that the situation created disturbance in the town, this was because of an immediate response to health and safety matters. Should the application be approved, then it would be possible to move forward by revisiting and reassessing the situation.

 

In response to a question regarding the cost of scaffolding to taxpayers, it was noted that costs were not a planning consideration, but the Cabinet had approved funding from the Council's Financial Strategy Fund to fund the work of securing the building.

 

In response to an observation made by the objector that there was a 'lack of exploring alternative options' and there was a need for commitment to work with SAVE and tighten conditions to ensure the best action, it was noted that the views and observations from external bodies had been considered and the final proposal had been amended in relation to those observations. He elaborated that the Council did not own the building and the response was in accordance with a listed building statutory requirement.

 

dd)      During the ensuing discussion the following points were made by Members:

·        The safety of the people of Tywyn was the priority - the site must be made safe

·        After demolition, the situation could be reassessed and consider the next steps

·        Visiting the site and resubmitting an application would be a further delay to the process

 

e)               A vote was taken on the proposal to carry out a site visit. The proposal fell.

 

In accordance with the procedure, the proposer and seconder who had recommended to approve the application were asked to confirm their proposal.

 

f)          Confirmation was requested from the officers whether observations from Tywyn Town Council or Aberdyfi Town Council had been submitted 08-07-25 - it was confirmed that the ones submitted were Aberdyfi Town Council observations.

 

ff)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members;

·        It was sad to see that part of the building was being demolished, especially part 5A

·        ⁠There was a need to move forward - this would at least start the process.

 

RESOLVED: To approve with conditions

 

1.         5 years

2.         In accordance with the plans

3.         Submit and agree a detailed methodology and a phased plan of the demolition works, to include details for securing and protecting the building prior to the commencement of the work. The details should also include a plan to restore the porch and garden along with details of salvaging materials.

4.         A qualified conservation professional should be employed to supervise and agree the methodology and demolition work as they commence, and to have it agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) before work commences. 

5.         The LPA should agree in writing on the details of the anchor bolts or pinning anchors before they are installed.

6.         Completion of the Level 3 historic building record of the Corbett Arms Hotel. Subject to structural integrity with the building made safe and secure, a photographic record of the interior should be included in this record.