Listed building destruction angers Wrexham councillors

Wrexham County Borough Council's planning committee criticised the applicants for works at Bank Farm near Whitchurch as they referred the application to CADW - the Welsh Government's historic environment service.

Committee chairman Cllr Mike Morris also insisted that planning officers should explore the possibility of criminal proceedings against the applicants for carrying out works without Listed Buildings Consent.

The application concerns the demolition of a 19th century piggery to build a larger extension to the farmhouse in its place.

According to Cadw, the piggery was part of a complex of 19th century barns designated as Grade II listed buildings in 2005. They were protected in recognition of their special interest as part of a mostly intact 19th century farmstead with connections to Iscoyd House.

The original Grade II listed piggery, which has been demolished and replaced at Bank Farm without permission. (Image: Google Street View)

The planning documents state that: "The multi-purpose barn range (shippon, stable, piggery and cart-house) is assessed by Cadw as being of special interest due to retaining definitive early 19th century character.

"The piggery is considered to be a fundamental element of the multi-purpose barn range and provides important evidential value of evolving farming practices and animal welfare during the 19th and early 20th century."

The new building oon the piggery site - which may now need to be demolished and rebuilt. (Image: Google Street View)

Planning officers and Wrexham Council's conservation officer have worked with the applicant to propose changes in an attempt to restore some of the character and features.

They include reducing the size of the building erected on the site of the piggery so that it is similar to the demolished building and retaining the remaining rear wall of the original piggery.

The applicants will also need to reduce the height of the building to better reflect the historical height of the piggery, reconnect the building to the Grade II listed multi-purpose barn range, increasing the separation distance between the farmhouse and new building, providing access through a glazed corridor and other aesthetic changes.

According to the conservation officer however,  the retrospective application could not undo the historical damage caused.

"The proposed changes would restore much of the original layout," said their report. "The unauthorised works have caused significant and permanent damage to the listed building."

Councillors accepted that 'the damage has been done' as they referred the new plans to Cadw to review the proposed changes and advise on approval, but were scathing of the application.

"I think it's quite a serious consideration that we have works carried out to a listed  building which haven't had consent," said Cllr Morris.

"Under normal circumstances, if the work hadn't been carried out, the outcome might have been greatly different.

"If members are mindful to support this application, I would ask that the officers also consider whether it's expedient to undertake criminal proceedings for damage to a listed building.

"It is against the law to damage a listed building without consent. The work's been done, the damage has been done, regardless of how we dress it up.

"It might be nice for the applicant to have what they want in terms of their house and so on and we've agreed a scheme to mitigate the damage, nevertheless the damage has been done."

It was a view supported by Cllr Bryan Apsley: "It's a nonsense when we expect 98% of the population to ask for permission and do it properly.

"It's not good enough. The conservation officer has done a lot of work and it won't be far off what it was - but it won't be right will it?"

Senior planning officer Matt Phillips said work had been going on with the applicant since 2023 to resolve this without prosecution, however it remained a possibility.

"In terms of prosecution, the reason it's not been done to date is we've been negotiating to get an agreeable outcome," he said.  "If we'd taken a very strict line we might have prejudiced getting a better outcome than is already there on site. However that remains in the armoury to use should these proposals not be implemented."